Jess Phillips Urges Supreme Court to Reverse Abuse Ruling

Published: 21 October 2026. The English Chronicle Desk. The English Chronicle Online

Labour MP Jess Phillips has called on the UK Supreme Court to overturn a controversial ruling that prevents a domestic abuse survivor from bringing a civil claim against Sussex Police and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) after her home address was disclosed to her violent former partner. Phillips has warned that upholding the decision could weaken accountability for public authorities and make it more difficult for victims of domestic abuse and sexual violence to seek justice when institutions fail to protect them.

The Supreme Court is hearing the case over two days, on Wednesday and Thursday, with the central question involving the extent to which police forces and prosecutors can be held legally responsible for information disclosed during criminal proceedings. Phillips, a former minister responsible for safeguarding and violence against women and girls, believes the case carries implications beyond the circumstances of one survivor. She argues that civil law has an important role in exposing institutional failures, encouraging reforms and rebuilding confidence among people who depend on the justice system for protection.

The woman at the centre of the proceedings has been identified anonymously as XGY. Her address was disclosed by a CPS lawyer during a magistrates’ court hearing in which an order was being sought to prevent her former partner from entering the road where she lived. The man had been accused of serious offences against her, including rape and threats to kill her and throw acid at her. The allegations formed part of the background to the application intended to restrict his movements and help protect the woman.

However, her home address was revealed during the hearing. Sussex Police had supplied the information to the CPS without marking it as confidential, allowing the address to be disclosed in court. The woman subsequently moved home following the incident, which undermined the sense of safety she had sought to establish after experiencing abuse.

The case raises difficult questions about how sensitive information should be handled when several parts of the criminal justice system work together. Victims may need to provide detailed personal information to police officers, prosecutors and courts so that allegations can be investigated and protective measures considered. When such information is shared between agencies, its confidentiality can be crucial to a survivor’s physical security and emotional recovery.

For XGY, the disclosure was not simply an administrative mistake. It affected her ability to feel secure in her own home and left her dealing with consequences that continued years after the incident. In a statement, she said that more than six years later, she was still living with the impact of what had happened and the loss of the security she believed she had finally found.

She has continued pursuing the case because she believes survivors should be able to trust that information shared to protect themselves will remain confidential. If that trust is broken, she argues, there should be a means of holding the responsible authorities to account. Her position reflects a wider concern among survivors and campaigners that cooperation with the justice system should not expose victims to further risk.

The legal dispute centres on a principle known as core immunity, which traditionally protects witnesses and lawyers from certain forms of civil liability for statements and actions connected with court proceedings. The protection exists to help ensure that people can participate in the justice system without the constant threat of being sued over what they say or do in court.

The Court of Appeal ruled last year that XGY could not sue Sussex Police and the CPS over the disclosure. Its decision interpreted the protection as extending beyond the presentation of evidence inside a courtroom, covering a broader range of police activities connected with investigations, including actions taking place outside court.

That interpretation has prompted concern about how far immunity should extend when an alleged failure involves information handling and operational decisions rather than the substance of evidence presented during a hearing. The Supreme Court must now consider whether the Court of Appeal applied the principle too broadly and whether the survivor’s proposed claim should be allowed to proceed.

The outcome could influence how victims pursue civil remedies when they believe public authorities have failed in their responsibilities. It is important, however, to distinguish between the right to bring a claim and the eventual outcome of that claim. Allowing XGY to sue would not automatically establish that either organisation was legally liable. It would instead permit the relevant arguments about the alleged failures to be considered through the civil justice process.

Phillips said she hoped the Supreme Court would “see sense” and reverse the decision. She stressed that her concern was not simply about enabling victims to obtain financial compensation from the police. In her view, civil proceedings can expose shortcomings that might otherwise remain unresolved and can encourage institutions to change their practices to prevent similar failures in the future.

She pointed to previous cases involving failures in the treatment of women and girls, including circumstances in which victims were treated as offenders rather than receiving appropriate support. Such experiences, she argued, demonstrate why accountability mechanisms outside the criminal courts can matter. Civil claims can provide an avenue for examining institutional conduct even when the central issue is not whether an individual should be convicted of a crime.

Phillips also warned that a broad interpretation of immunity could have consequences for public confidence in the police and prosecutors. She acknowledged that the police had improved aspects of their response to violence against women over the past two decades, but described the Court of Appeal’s ruling as chilling. She argued that removing meaningful opportunities for civil accountability would not necessarily benefit either the police or the CPS, particularly at a time when trust among victims remains a serious concern.

She referred to a series of events and investigations that have damaged women’s confidence in policing, including the murder of Sarah Everard and revelations involving misconduct by police officers. Such cases have contributed to wider debates about institutional culture, professional standards and whether women can expect their concerns to be treated seriously when reporting violence or seeking protection.

For Phillips, maintaining public confidence requires more than encouraging victims to report crimes. It also requires credible ways to examine mistakes, acknowledge harm and introduce meaningful reforms when public bodies fall short. If survivors believe that authorities cannot be challenged even when sensitive information is mishandled, she fears that trust in the system could deteriorate further.

Phillips has also taken a parliamentary initiative to address the legal consequences of the Court of Appeal ruling. Alongside fellow MPs David Davis and Andrew Mitchell, she has tabled an amendment to a bill that would counteract the effect of the decision if the Supreme Court does not overturn it. The MPs argue that the judgment created a precedent that Parliament had not intended.

The proposed amendment illustrates the broader constitutional dimension of the dispute. The Supreme Court is being asked to interpret the existing legal protections, while Parliament could consider legislative changes if the courts leave the current position unchanged. Any amendment would need to be considered through the parliamentary process, and its ultimate effect would depend on the wording of the legislation and whether it became law.

At the same time, the case highlights the challenge of balancing protection for participants in legal proceedings with the need to hold public authorities responsible for their actions. Immunity rules are designed to protect the integrity of the justice system, but questions arise when their scope appears to prevent scrutiny of conduct that may have exposed a vulnerable person to danger.

The authorities involved have important responsibilities in handling information about domestic abuse survivors. Police must record and communicate relevant information accurately, while prosecutors need to consider confidentiality and potential risks when presenting cases in court. Where protective measures depend on keeping a person’s location private, even an administrative omission can have serious consequences.

The proceedings may therefore have implications for training, information-sharing procedures and the way agencies identify confidential details before court hearings. Regardless of the legal outcome, the case has drawn attention to the need for clear safeguards around victims’ personal information, especially when alleged abusers may pose continuing risks.

Sussex Police and the CPS were approached for comment. Their responses were not included in the information available ahead of the Supreme Court hearing, and the court has yet to deliver its decision. The final judgment will determine the immediate legal position in XGY’s case and could clarify the boundaries of immunity for police and prosecutors.

For the survivor, the case represents a long effort to obtain accountability for an incident that continues to affect her life. For Phillips and other supporters, it raises a fundamental question about whether people who turn to public authorities for protection should have access to a legal remedy when they believe those authorities have failed them.

The Supreme Court’s task is to resolve the legal dispute according to the law, rather than political pressure. Nevertheless, the consequences of its decision are likely to be closely watched by domestic abuse survivors, legal professionals, police forces and campaigners seeking stronger safeguards for women and girls. At stake is not only the scope of a longstanding legal immunity, but also the relationship between confidentiality, public accountability and the ability of vulnerable people to seek protection without fearing that the system itself could compromise their safety.