Scrap police immunity to protect domestic abuse victims, say ex-ministers

Police immunity from being sued for blunders must be scrapped to protect victims of domestic abuse and other crimes, former senior ministers have said. In an exclusive joint article, Labour’s Jess Phillips and Sir Andrew Mitchell, a Conservative, have warned that granting police and prosecutors wider immunity would mean victims could not hold them accountable for misconduct and negligence. They have voiced their concerns about a case before the Supreme Court where a domestic abuse victim has been blocked from suing Sussex Police after her address was disclosed to her former partner in court by a Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) lawyer. Sussex Police had not marked the address as confidential when sending it to the CPS. With her life at risk as a result, she was forced to flee her home and suffered post-traumatic stress disorder. Her former partner had raped her, threatened to kill her and thrown acid on her. Witnesses and lawyers in court traditionally have what is known as “core immunity”, which protects them from being sued for statements or actions made in court during a case. In a Court of Appeal ruling last year, judges blocked the victim’s attempts to sue the police and CPS. They argued core immunity applied not just to evidence but also to a broad range of police activity, including matters outside the courtroom relating to an investigation. The woman, known only as XGY, has appealed to the Supreme Court to overturn that ruling, with a decision expected soon. Ms Phillips , a former Home Office minister, and Sir Andrew , a former deputy foreign secretary, said: “In its judgment, the Court of Appeal radically expanded this immunity, to cover almost anything police or prosecutors do while conducting an investigation. “The judgment creates an accountability black hole. If it is upheld, it will become vastly more difficult for victims of negligence and misconduct during investigations to get redress, no matter how severely they were harmed. “Would this immunity defence be available to police in cases where they have withheld exculpatory evidence, leaked confidential and sensitive information or recklessly placed victims of crime at greater risk?” They cited the case of John Worboys , the “black cab rapist”, where two victims sued the Metropolitan Police for investigative failings that enabled Worboys to continue attacking women for five years. “Their claim may have been a non-starter, had the new ‘core immunity’ defence been available to police,” said Ms Phillips and Sir Andrew. Sir Andrew is championing the case of Ali Kololo , a Kenyan man who spent 11 years in prison after a wrongful conviction for murder that Met officers helped Kenyan police secure. Mr Kololo was convicted of aiding an armed gang who killed David Tebbutt, a publishing executive, and kidnapped his wife, Judith Tebbutt, in 2011. The Met assisted with the investigation, and a senior officer was a star witness for the prosecution. But the Independent Office for Police Conduct found that the senior officer had omitted vital forensic evidence, relied on a supposed “confession” given under torture – and “would have had a case to answer for gross misconduct” had he not retired from the force. The politicians noted: “The Met’s lawyers have indicated they will rely on an immunity defence, in their bid to deny him the redress he so clearly deserves.” They added: “Civil claims against the police or CPS are already difficult to bring and harder still to win. They may only be pursued in the most egregious of cases, where the misconduct or bad faith is so flagrant that it results in grave harm to the victim. “It is hard to overstate the damage that would be done, should the Supreme Court narrow this avenue of accountability still further. “We hope the Supreme Court acts to close this dangerous accountability loophole created by the expansion of core immunity, to ensure that police are held to the same standard as the rest of us and must face the consequences when their actions cause harm. “If the court will not, then the Government must, with support from both sides of the House.”