MPs push to close police immunity loophole after Court of Appeal ruling

Cross-party MPs are seeking to overturn a 2025 ruling that shields police from civil claims, even where evidence was fabricated or victims were put at risk.

Cross-party amendment targets broad police immunity from civil lawsuits

A 2025 Court of Appeal judgment has handed police in England and Wales sweeping immunity from civil litigation — covering not only their conduct as witnesses but a wide range of investigative activity — and backbench MPs are now moving to reverse it, BBC News reports.

Conservative Andrew Mitchell and Labour's Jess Phillips have jointly submitted an amendment to a bill due to be debated in Parliament next week. Their amendment would remove immunity in cases where officers have fabricated evidence, acted dishonestly or negligently, or made reckless disclosures of confidential information relating to victims.

Separately, the ruling could be overturned at a Supreme Court appeal later this month.

Domestic violence case that prompted the ruling

The judgment arose from a claim brought by a victim of serious domestic violence. After fleeing her abuser to a secret refuge, Sussex Police included her new address in a file passed to the Crown Prosecution Service without adequately marking it as confidential. A CPS lawyer subsequently disclosed the address in open court during a bail hearing, allowing the abuser to learn of it.

The woman was forced to flee again. She told the court that the place she had been made to feel safe "no longer felt safe at all" and said she continued to live with the impact of what had happened and the loss of security it had caused.

She brought claims against both Sussex Police and the CPS, arguing that the failure had placed her in fear for her life, compelled her to leave her home, led to a loss of earnings and resulted in a psychiatric injury. Her claims were initially rejected, reinstated on appeal, then struck out again.

What the ruling means in practice

Witnesses and lawyers already benefit from what is known as "core immunity" for statements made in court, allowing them to speak freely. The Court of Appeal extended that protection significantly, ruling that it covers an extremely broad range of police conduct and statements made in the course of an investigation leading to a potential prosecution.

As a result, most categories of civil claim are blocked — including those relating to serious human rights abuses and data breaches — with no exemptions for unjustifiable conduct. Officers remain subject to criminal prosecution and police misconduct proceedings, but victims are effectively barred from pursuing them through the civil courts.

Mitchell told BBC News the "police misconduct immunity created by the Court of Appeal's ruling" was extremely concerning. He said that if "we fail to close this legal loophole there will be devastating consequences for victims."

The case of Ali Kololo

Mitchell also cited the case of Ali Kololo, a Kenyan woodcutter who spent 11 years in prison after being wrongfully convicted of helping a gang that attacked two British tourists in Kenya in 2011, one of whom was murdered. He was sentenced to death following a trial in Kenya at which a senior Metropolitan Police officer, called as a prosecution witness, omitted key evidence.

Kololo, who is represented by human rights group Reprieve, is now suing the Metropolitan Police. The force has indicated it will rely on the principle of core immunity in defending the claim — a position the Court of Appeal ruling is likely to strengthen. A Met spokesperson said the force would not comment on the ongoing civil claim but added that its thoughts were with Kololo, the victims of the original crime, and their families.

Concerns over an "accountability gap"

Kate Ellis, from the Centre for Women's Justice, told BBC News that forces may now argue they cannot be "held legally responsible at all for serious mistakes made in a criminal investigation." She warned this could create an "accountability gap" in which police forces that fail to properly investigate rapists, stalkers or domestic abusers "face no consequences for their failings."

The amendment tabled by Mitchell and Phillips, to be debated on Tuesday, states that — except when acting as witnesses — police officers shall have no immunity for actions taken in preparation for criminal proceedings, including in cases involving the specified grave failings.

A government spokesperson said the Home Secretary and Lord Chancellor had already commissioned a review into police accountability following longstanding concerns from policing leaders, officers, victims and their families that the current system was not fit for purpose, adding that any changes to how the police are treated should be considered alongside the wider findings of that review.

Sussex Police and the National Police Chiefs Council both declined to comment.

Source: BBC News