Abuse victims' trust in police at risk, Supreme Court hears in immunity case
Legal experts challenge police and prosecutor immunity in landmark case
Last updated 21st Oct 2026
Domestic abuse victims could have weaker confidence in the police and prosecutors if they are immune from being sued when sensitive information is wrongly shared in court, the Supreme Court has heard.
A woman, known as “Maya” or XGY, reported her former partner to Sussex Police after their relationship ended in 2019, accusing him of rape, physical and sexual assault, threatening to kill her and threatening to throw acid on her and her family.
But her new address was disclosed to her abuser by a barrister during a court hearing, which forced her to move again.
She sued Sussex Police and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), claiming she was made homeless and that the incident had worsened her depression and post-traumatic stress disorder.
Judges at the County Court and Court of Appeal dismissed her claim, finding both bodies were protected by the immunity given to barristers for things said and done in court.
The woman has now taken her case to the Supreme Court, with campaigners raising concerns about the potential impact on victims’ rights and a lack of accountability for police.
Kate Ellis, joint head of litigation at the Centre for Women’s Justice, said ahead of Wednesday’s hearing: “If the police and CPS are entitled to claim immunity from legal actions that relate to the actual conduct and preparation of criminal cases – not just for errors made by advocates or witnesses in the courtroom – that is deeply concerning.”
Fiona Murphy KC, for Maya, said in written submissions that there is no “blanket” immunity for things said and done in court.
She told the court: “In reasoning that the immunity applies to all statements in court, irrespective of the cause of action and the circumstances of the alleged conduct, the Court of Appeal adopted the wrong starting point.”
The barrister said there was immunity where necessary, such as preventing defamation claims based on what witnesses say in evidence, which protects free speech and the justice process.
She added that immunity does not apply to breaches of duty of care by a barrister or expert to their client.
Ms Murphy later said: “The error occurred in the particularly important context of the protection of victims of violence against women and girls from repeat victimisation, for which the state bears responsibility. Yet XGY is left without a remedy.”
The UK’s highest court was also told that victims of domestic abuse “may have no practical choice” but to trust police and prosecuting bodies with sensitive information.
Ms Murphy continued: “A rule denying every remedy when protected information is unnecessarily disclosed in court risks weakening confidence in those authorities, discouraging cooperation and exposing victims to renewed danger, displacement and trauma.”
The CPS and Sussex Police are opposing the appeal.
Sir James Eadie KC, for the CPS, said that the body accepts that Maya’s address should not have been disclosed in court.
He continued in written submissions: “Words spoken in the course of proceedings in court are absolutely immune from suit, whatever the cause of action relied upon.
“The immunity protects judges, jurors, advocates and witnesses.”
Sir James said this immunity does not cover “wholly extraneous” matters, or cases of negligence by a barrister or expert to their own client.
The barrister added: “The justification for the immunity is public policy, specifically the public interest in the effective administration of justice.
“People must be able to speak freely in proceedings in court without fear of being sued, whether successfully or not.”
Jason Beer KC, representing Sussex Police, said in written submissions that the Court of Appeal was correct to find that advocates have this “core immunity”.
He continued: “The Chief Constable’s position on the point of law and wider public policy issues should not detract from her regret as to the position in which XGY was placed and her support of those, like XGY, who suffer from domestic abuse.”
Mr Beer said the legal points made in the appeal “in no way undermine this commitment”, adding: “The protection of women and girls from abuse and violence is and remains a matter of the highest priority for the police, nationally and in Sussex.”
The hearing before Lords Reed, Sales, Doherty, Snowden and Lady Rose, is due to conclude on Thursday, with a decision expected at a later date.