The judgment in XGY v Chief Constable of Sussex Police and Another ([2024] EWHC 1963 (KB)) addresses critical legal questions about the scope of immunity for actions taken by Police and prosecution during the investigation and trial processes. The case primarily revolves around the mishandling of sensitive information related to the claimant’s address, leading to claims of psychological harm, breaches of statutory duties, and violations of human rights.
XGY v Chief Constable of Sussex Police & Anor (Rev1)
Background
The claimant, XGY, was a victim of domestic abuse perpetrated by her ex-partner, K. Following the end of their relationship, K was arrested multiple times for violent actions against XGY, and Police and Court proceedings followed. Throughout the process, XGY took several steps to protect her safety, including relocating and requesting that her new address be kept confidential from K. However, this request was not respected by the Police or the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), and her address was disclosed twice in Court during a bail application, enabling K to learn of her whereabouts. These disclosures put the Claimant in fear and accordingly, she had to relocate.
This disclosure prompted XGY to file a civil claim against the Chief Constable of Sussex Police and the CPS, alleging that the failure to protect her confidential information caused her further harm, including exacerbated psychological trauma.
Key legal issues
The case raised significant questions about the following:
- Immunity from civil suit:
- The core issue in the judgment is the extent of immunity enjoyed by public authorities like the Police and CPS. The principle of Advocates’ Immunity was debated, which typically shields actions and words said in Court from civil suits.
- The police and CPS argued that their actions were protected by immunity. The Police claimed that, in preparing the file for the CPS, they were protected by what the judgment referred to as Legal Proceedings Immunity, which traditionally covers Police officers’ and legal professionals’ activities directly related to Court proceedings.
- Breach of human rights (ECHR):
- XGY argued that the disclosure of her address violated her rights under Articles 2, 3, and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which protect the right to life, prohibit inhuman and degrading treatment, and protect the right to respect for private and family life, respectively.
- The Court had to assess whether the public bodies had breached their positive duties to safeguard XGY’s rights.
- Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA):
- The claim also involved a breach of the Data Protection Act 2018, particularly in relation to the unlawful processing and disclosure of XGY’s sensitive personal information.
Court’s findings
- Immunity:
-
- The Court at first instance upheld the principle of Advocates’ Immunity and Legal Proceedings Immunity for both the CPS and the Police and granted summary judgment and strike out.
- The Court of Appeal however overturned this finding. Mr Justice Richie determined that the Appeal Courts had over time moved away from an ‘absolutism’ approach to immunity from suits towards cases being assessed on their own merits.
- The judge found that the errors that had occurred were more of an administrative nature as opposed to forming part of the evidence in the case and further that a finding that immunity applied in this case would undermine the public policy grounds for witness immunity (i.e. to protect witnesses and ensure administration of justice). Accordingly, immunity from suit would be unlikely to apply in this case or at least the judge found that there was key evidence in respect of the enquiry into whether immunity from suit should apply missing and accordingly the finding of the first instance judge was unsafe.
2. Human rights violations:
-
- Similarly, Mr Justice Richie found that the threat to the Claimant’s person and life was not given the seriousness it deserved by the first instance judge, not least because K was accused of raping the Claimant, had threatened to kill her, and had threatened to throw acid on the Claimant and her family.
3. Data protection and misuse of private information:
-
- Notwithstanding the claim having been struck out in large part at the first instance hearing, the Appeal Court reinstated the claim on the basis of the findings set out above.
Comment
The judgment highlights the delicate balance Courts must strike between protecting the integrity of legal proceedings and safeguarding the rights of victims involved in those proceedings. This case is a reminder that the current state of the law in respect of immunity from suit is that the police/CPS are no longer absolutely immune from suit but rather that each individual case must be assessed in terms of the breach that has occurred, the impact of it and whether on public policy grounds immunity should apply.
This article is for information only and does not constitute legal/financial advice. Please contact us for advice tailored to your specific position. Some of the content presented on our website has been generated with the assistance of Artificial Intelligence (AI). We ensure that all AI-generated content meets our high standards for accuracy and relevance.
