The Chief Constable of Sussex Police and another (Respondents) v XGY (Appellant)

Permission to Appeal application lodged

Case summary
Permission to Appeal
Previous proceedings

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2025/0194

Parties

Appellant(s)

XGY

Respondent(s)

The Chief Constable of Sussex Police

The Crown Prosecution Service

Issue

Is the CPS advocate immune from suit in respect of anything said or done in the course of a bail hearing, including the disclosure of a vulnerable person’s confidential address to their abusive ex-partner? Does that immunity extend to the police, who included the Appellant’s address in the file for the CPS? If the common law immunity does exist and apply, does it bar claims under the Human Rights Act 1998 and Data Protection Act 2018? Did the Court of Appeal err in reinstating the summary disposal of the Appellant’s Human Rights Act claims?

Facts

The Appellant, XGY, was the victim of domestic abuse at the hands of DYP, her ex-partner. She fled to her grandparents’ home. DYP made threats to kill her and attack her grandparents. She therefore moved to her aunt’s house and provided this address to the police. The police arrested DYP but subsequently released him on bail on the condition that he not enter the town of Epsom. This alerted DYP to the fact that XGY had moved to Epsom, which he had not known. XGY fled again, living homeless in a women’s refuge, and then moved to a council home in Hampshire. She again provided this address to the police, subject to assurances that the police would keep her new address confidential. XGY then reported DYP for rape, and he was arrested and interviewed. The police reiterated their assurance that they would keep XGY’s whereabouts confidential. DYP was admitted to police bail in relation to the rape allegation but remained in detention pending an appearance in court for an unrelated breach of bail conditions. The police prepared a file for the CPS which contained information about XGY’s new address. Subsequently, during a bail hearing, the CPS advocate sought a bail condition restricting DYP from visiting XGY’s new address, which again revealed her whereabouts (“the Hampshire disclosure”). XGY again had to flee, and she remained homeless. DYP was subsequently convicted of 6 counts of common assault on XGY but the rape allegation was discontinued as “unsolved”. XGY initiated proceedings against the CPS and the Chief Constable in respect of the Hampshire disclosure, arguing that it placed her in fear for her life, forced her to leave her home, caused her to suffer loss of earnings, and resulted in her developing a psychiatric injury. The CPS applied to strike out her claims without filing a defence. The Chief Constable filed a defence. HHJ Brownhill in the County Court struck out XGY’s claims on the basis that there was a core immunity for the actions of advocates in court. She struck out XGY’s claims against the police on the basis that the immunity extended to them too. XGY appealed to the High Court, who overturned the decision of HHJ Brownhill on all grounds. The CPS and the Chief Constable appealed to the Court of Appeal, who reinstated the decision of HHJ Brownhill. XGY now seeks permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.