Key facts
- MPs are seeking to overturn a court ruling that prevents police from being sued for investigative failings.
British lawmakers are pushing to reverse a court decision that shields police from civil lawsuits, even in cases of serious investigative failures. The ruling, which could be challenged in the Supreme Court, has raised concerns about an accountability gap for police misconduct.
The ruling could leave victims of serious police misconduct and investigative errors without recourse to civil legal action, potentially creating an accountability gap for law enforcement agencies.
British lawmakers are attempting to reverse a recent court ruling that significantly limits the ability of crime victims to sue the police for investigative failings. The Court of Appeal's 2025 judgment, which applies to England and Wales, established that police officers are immune from civil litigation for their conduct and statements during criminal investigations, even in cases of dishonesty, negligence, or fabrication of evidence.
Conservative MP Andrew Mitchell and Labour MP Jess Phillips have put forward an amendment to a bill scheduled for parliamentary debate next week, aiming to nullify the ruling's effect. The amendment seeks to remove immunity for police actions in preparation for criminal proceedings, excluding their role as witnesses, particularly in instances of grave failings.
Separately, the judgment is also subject to an appeal at the Supreme Court later this month. The current immunity extends to a broad range of police activities, blocking most legal claims, including those related to human rights abuses and data breaches, with no exemptions for unjustifiable conduct. However, officers can still face criminal prosecution and internal misconduct processes.
The issue was highlighted by a case involving a victim of domestic violence who had her new address disclosed by Sussex Police and the CPS, leading to her having to flee her refuge. Her claims against both forces were ultimately struck out. The ruling's expansion of "core immunity," typically applied to witnesses and lawyers to ensure free speech in court, has drawn criticism.
Mitchell described the immunity as "extremely concerning" and warned of "devastating consequences for victims" if the loophole is not closed. He cited the case of Ali Kololo, a Kenyan man who spent 11 years in jail after a wrongful conviction, partly due to a Met Police officer omitting key evidence during his trial. Kololo is suing the Met, which plans to use the principle of core immunity in its defense.
Kate Ellis of the Centre for Women's Justice expressed concern that forces might argue they cannot be held legally responsible for serious mistakes, creating an "accountability gap." A government spokesperson stated that the home secretary and lord chancellor have commissioned a review into police accountability.
Pick the topics you care about. Get only what matters, on your cadence.