Advocate Immunity Reaffirmed by the Court of Appeal

Theodore Bunce writes about the decision in Chief Constable of Sussex Police and another v XGY [2025] EWCA Civ 1230, in which the Court of Appeal has restated in fairly emphatic fashion the scope of advocate immunity, overturning a High Court ruling that had sought to narrow its application.

The Claimant was a victim of domestic abuse. During a bail hearing for her former partner, a Crown Prosecution Service advocate inadvertently read out her confidential home address in open court. The address had been supplied to the police and CPS on the understanding it would remain protected.

The Claimant alleged that the disclosure forced her to move and caused significant psychological harm. She brought claims against both the CPS and Sussex Police under the Human Rights Act 1998, the Data Protection Act 2018 and at common law for breach of confidence and misuse of private information.

The county court judge struck out her claims on the basis of advocate immunity. On appeal, the High Court reinstated it, holding that immunity should be justified on a case-by-case basis. The Defendants appealed.

The Lady Chief Justice, sitting with Dame Victoria Sharp and Lord Justice Coulson, allowed the appeal and reinstated the strike-out. The Court confirmed that statements made by advocates in the ordinary conduct of court proceedings are absolutely protected from civil liability, even if they might otherwise give rise to a cause of action. That protection, the Court said, cannot be “outflanked” by reframing a complaint under statutory or data protection law.

The Court further confirmed that the immunity extends to preparatory acts by the police and CPS undertaken in support of the prosecution process. It rejected the suggestion that the courts should assess justification for immunity on a case-specific basis.

While expressing sympathy for the Claimant, the Court found that public policy considerations, chiefly the need for advocates to act fearlessly and for proceedings to be final, required the immunity to remain intact. The Court also reinstated summary judgment on the Human Rights Act claim, as the Claimant was not a “victim” under section 7 as no real and immediate risk to her safety had been shown.

Barbara Mills KC, chairwoman of the Bar Council, reacted: “In our intervention, we sought to protect the core principle of immunity from liability for advocates and argued that those who participate in court proceedings should be able to speak freely, without fear of being sued.”