Police & CPS Accountability: Rights at Risk
MPs are challenging a court ruling that could leave victims unable to pursue civil action over serious police failings. Jade Blue’s case shows why accountability matters - and how legal challenges can drive meaningful reform
A troubling legal ruling has raised serious questions about victims’ rights and the ability to hold the police and Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) accountable when things go wrong.
In October 2025, the Court of Appeal expanded legal immunity for police officers beyond their role as witnesses in court, potentially preventing victims from bringing civil claims over serious failings during criminal investigations. The implications are significant. Victims could find themselves unable to seek compensation or legal accountability even where negligence, dishonesty or the mishandling of sensitive information has caused considerable harm.
The Case Behind the Ruling
The judgement followed a case involving a survivor of domestic abuse whose confidential refuge address was passed by Sussex Police to the CPS and subsequently disclosed during a court hearing. Her abuser learned where she was living, forcing her to flee again.
Despite the consequences, her civil claims against the police and CPS were struck out.
The case raises a fundamental question: if the institutions responsible for protecting victims cause further harm, should those victims be prevented from challenging them through the courts?
MPs Challenge the Accountability Gap
On 13 October, MPs Jess Phillips and Sir Andrew Mitchell raised the issue during the Commons debate on the Courts and Tribunals Bill.
Their proposed New Clause 22 seeks to restrict police immunity from civil litigation for conduct undertaken in preparation for criminal proceedings, including negligence, dishonesty, evidence tampering and reckless disclosure of confidential information.
The proposal would preserve protections for officers acting as witnesses while challenging the broader immunity created by the ruling.
The Government has not yet adopted the proposed change, stating that it must consider the outcome of an upcoming Supreme Court appeal, scheduled for 21–22 October.
Jade Blue’s Case: Why Civil Action Matters
During the debate, Jess Phillips specifically referenced the experience of Jade Blue, founder of Make Yourself Heard, as an example of how civil litigation can expose institutional failings and contribute to wider reform.
In 2020, the CPS discontinued Jade’s rape prosecution shortly before trial. She subsequently challenged the decision, secured an apology and compensation from the CPS, and continued campaigning for changes to the Victims’ Right to Review (VRR) process. Her experience exposed a critical flaw: victims could successfully challenge a decision to end their prosecution, yet discover that the review came too late for proceedings to continue.
Following sustained campaigning and engagement with the CPS and government, an Early Victims’ Right to Review pilot was introduced in June 2025 and expanded nationally in July 2026. Eligible victims of rape and serious sexual offences can now request a review before a decision to offer no evidence becomes final, allowing them to challenge the decision while their case can continue.
Speaking in Parliament, Jess Phillips credited Jade’s civil action and campaigning with helping bring about this change.
Her message was clear: restricting civil action risks preventing not only individual accountability but the wider improvements that can emerge when institutional failures are challenged.
Accountability Must Not Be Optional
At Make Yourself Heard, we recognise the importance of protecting the integrity of criminal proceedings. But protecting witnesses from litigation over their evidence should not mean shielding institutions from accountability for failures that cause serious harm.
Civil litigation is not simply about financial compensation. It can establish responsibility, expose systemic weaknesses and create pressure for meaningful reform.
Jade’s experience reminds us of that. Her legal action could not reverse what happened in 2020, but the subsequent campaigning helped secure changes that may prevent others from experiencing the same injustice.
No survivor should have to take legal action to force institutions to acknowledge their mistakes. Yet removing or restricting that avenue of accountability risks leaving victims with fewer options when those institutions fail.
We welcome the efforts of Jess Phillips and Sir Andrew Mitchell to challenge this troubling expansion of immunity and urge the Government to ensure victims retain meaningful routes to legal redress.
