MP urges Supreme Court to reverse domestic abuse immunity ruling

Labour MP Jess Phillips has urged the UK Supreme Court to overturn a ruling that blocks a domestic abuse survivor from suing police and prosecutors over a breach of confidentiality. The case, set to be heard this week, could set a precedent for accountability in violence against women and girls cases.

The survivor, identified in court as XGY, had her address disclosed by a Crown Prosecution Service lawyer during a hearing where a restraining order was sought against her violent ex-partner. He was accused of rape, threats to kill her, and acid attacks. Sussex police had failed to mark the address as confidential before sending it to the CPS. XGY was forced to move homes after the disclosure.

The Court of Appeal ruled last year that XGY could not sue, citing “core immunity”—a legal protection traditionally granted to witnesses and lawyers in court. The ruling expanded this immunity beyond evidence to include broader police actions outside courtrooms, such as investigative failures. Phillips criticized the decision, calling it “chilling” and warning it could undermine trust in law enforcement.

Phillips, a former minister for safeguarding and violence against women and girls, said: “Often these cases where there’s been failures lead to longer-term change for victims of domestic abuse and sexual violence, like police failures within the grooming cases for example – charging women with crimes rather than helping them as victims.”

While the Supreme Court’s decision remains pending, Phillips and fellow MPs David Davis and Andrew Mitchell have proposed a bill amendment to reverse the Court of Appeal’s ruling if upheld. The amendment aims to prevent what Phillips described as a precedent that was never intended by parliament that shields police and prosecutors from civil liability.

XGY’s case highlights the lasting trauma of such breaches. She stated: “More than six years later, I’m still living with the impact of what happened and the loss of the security I thought I’d finally found. I’ve continued with this case because I believe survivors should be able to trust that the information they share to protect themselves will be kept confidential. If that trust is broken, there should be accountability.”

The CPS said that it would not be appropriate to comment while proceedings were active.