Labour MP Jess Phillips has said she hopes the UK supreme court "sees sense" and overturns a court of appeal ruling that prevents a domestic abuse survivor from suing Sussex police and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) over the disclosure of her address to her violent ex-partner. The supreme court hears the case on Wednesday and Thursday.
The woman, anonymised as XGY in court proceedings, had her address disclosed by a CPS lawyer during a magistrates hearing. Authorities were seeking a condition to stop her former partner, who was accused of raping her and threatening to kill her and throw acid on her, from entering the road where she lived. Sussex police had not marked the address as confidential when sending it to the CPS, and XGY moved home as a result.
Last year, the court of appeal ruled that XGY could not sue Sussex police and the CPS, saying "core immunity" applied beyond evidential matters to a broad range of police activity, including matters outside the courtroom relating to an investigation.
Phillips, a former minister for safeguarding and violence against women and girls, said she hoped the supreme court overturns the decision. She said criminal law in domestic abuse cases "has seen decades of failure", so civil law is used to make the systems better. She described the ruling as "chilling" and said the idea that police and the CPS cannot be held accountable would damage victims' perceptions of the police, pointing to inquiries into the murder of Sarah Everard and the Charing Cross police station. Along with fellow MPs David Davis and Andrew Mitchell, she has tabled an amendment to a bill that would counteract the ruling if it is upheld.
XGY said that more than six years on, she is still living with the impact. "If that trust is broken, there should be accountability," she said.
The CPS and Sussex police were approached for comment.
Analysis
Why This Matters
- The supreme court's decision will determine whether victims of domestic abuse can use civil action to hold police and prosecutors accountable for failures that put them at risk.
- A ruling against XGY could set a broad precedent shielding police and CPS conduct from civil liability beyond the courtroom.
- The case has prompted a cross-party amendment to legislation, signalling that parliament may step in if the courts do not.
Background
Core immunity is a long-established legal principle that protects witnesses, lawyers and judges from being sued over what is said in court proceedings, on the basis that the administration of justice depends on candour. The court of appeal extended that protection to a wider range of police activity, including conduct outside the courtroom. Phillips argues this goes beyond what parliament intended and removes an accountability route that has driven change in how victims of domestic abuse are treated.
Key Perspectives
Jess Phillips and the survivor XGY: They argue that confidentiality is essential to victims' safety, and that when it is broken there must be a route to accountability. Phillips says civil claims have historically produced longer-term improvements in police and CPS handling of domestic abuse and sexual violence.
Sussex police and the CPS: Both were approached for comment but none was reported. The court of appeal's ruling, which they successfully relied on, reflects the position that core immunity should apply to their work, not only to evidence given in court.
Critics of the ruling: MPs from across the political spectrum, including David Davis and Andrew Mitchell, support an amendment that would reverse the effect of the court of appeal decision, suggesting concern that the ruling exceeds what parliament intended.
What to Watch
- The supreme court's judgment after the two-day hearing, and whether it narrows or overturns the court of appeal's interpretation of core immunity.
- The progress of the MPs' amendment if the appeal fails, and whether the government supports it.
- Reactions from police and prosecution bodies, and any subsequent change in guidance on marking addresses as confidential.