Members of Parliament in the United Kingdom are seeking to reverse a recent court decision that they argue will significantly hinder victims' ability to seek legal recourse against the police, even in cases of severe investigative misconduct.
The 2025 Court of Appeal ruling, applicable in England and Wales, established that police officers are shielded from civil lawsuits, not only when acting as witnesses but also for actions and statements made during criminal investigations. Backbench lawmakers Andrew Mitchell and Jess Phillips have proposed an amendment to upcoming parliamentary legislation intended to counteract this ruling.
Concerns are mounting that this immunity could extend to situations involving fabricated evidence, dishonesty, negligence, or the reckless disclosure of confidential victim information. The MPs' amendment seeks to remove immunity in such cases, except when officers are performing their duties as witnesses in court.
"Police misconduct immunity created by the Court of Appeal's ruling is extremely concerning," Mitchell told BBC News. "If we fail to close this legal loophole there will be devastating consequences for victims."
The existing legal principle of "core immunity" generally protects witnesses and lawyers for statements made in court to ensure freedom of speech. However, the Court of Appeal decision broadened this immunity to encompass a wide array of police activities during investigations, thereby blocking most legal claims, including those related to serious human rights abuses and data breaches.
A case highlighted by the lawmakers involves a victim of domestic violence whose confidential new address was inadvertently disclosed by Sussex Police through a file sent to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). A CPS lawyer then revealed the address in court during a bail hearing, leading to the victim having to relocate again due to fear for her safety.
"The disclosure of her address had meant the place she was supposed to be safe 'no longer felt safe at all,'" the woman stated, describing her ongoing fear and loss of security. She had brought claims against both the police and CPS, alleging their failures led to her fearing for her life, being forced to leave her home, losing earnings, and developing a psychiatric injury. Her legal claims were ultimately struck out.
Another case cited is that of Ali Kololo, a Kenyan woodcutter who spent 11 years in prison after being wrongfully convicted in Kenya. He was sentenced to death following a trial where a senior Metropolitan Police officer allegedly omitted key evidence. Kololo is suing the Met, which intends to rely on core immunity in its defense, a position potentially strengthened by the Court of Appeal ruling.
Critics argue the ruling could create an "accountability gap," where police forces might avoid responsibility for serious errors in investigations, such as failing to adequately pursue cases involving rapists, stalkers, or domestic abusers. "Forces may now argue they cannot be 'held legally responsible at all for serious mistakes made in a criminal investigation,'" Kate Ellis from the Centre for Women's Justice told the BBC.
While the Court of Appeal ruling expands immunity, police officers can still face criminal prosecution and internal misconduct proceedings. The UK government has stated that the Home Secretary and Lord Chancellor have commissioned a review into police accountability, and any changes to police treatment will be considered alongside its findings.
A separate Supreme Court appeal concerning the judgment is also scheduled for later this month, which could potentially overturn the ruling.