In Chief Constable of Sussex Police & Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) v XGY [2025] EWCA Civ 1230, the claimant had been relocated to a secret address from a women’s refuge after suffering domestic abuse. During bail proceedings, an advocate for the CPS mistakenly revealed the claimant’s address in court in front of the ex-partner. The claimant sued for breach of confidence and misuse of private information, but would advocate immunity block her claim?
Mr Justice Ritchie held there was immunity for advocates, but recent case law meant it was limited and had to be justified on a case-by-case basis, and could not be justified in this case.
However, the Court of Appeal overturned Ritchie J’s decision, in a judgment handed down last week by the Lady Chief Justice, Baroness Carr, the President of the King’s Bench Division, Dame Victoria Sharp, and Lord Justice Coulson.
Their judgment states: ‘It is necessary for the proper administration of justice that advocates, parties, witnesses, judges, and jurors are immune from suit for statements made in court whatever the cause of action, regardless of whether the statement was made maliciously or was irrelevant to the court proceedings.
‘This is known as the core immunity. It is founded on public policy and is intended to encourage freedom of expression and communication in court proceedings in order to protect the proper administration of justice and the interests of justice.’
Barbara Mills KC, chair of the Bar Council, which intervened in the case, said: ‘This principle is critical for access to justice and the administration of justice. The uncertainty resulting from the High Court ruling could create a chilling effect on fearless advocacy, so we welcome [this] ruling which settles the position for the time being.’
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=49be51b1_1)
