Case Nos: CA-2024-002167 - [2025] EWCA Civ 1230

The Factual Background

XGY had been in a relationship with DYP. The relationship ended on 5 November 2019. XGY moved out of her home in Chichester and, unbeknown to DYP, went to live in Epsom with her aunt. The following day she reported DYP to the police and alleged that he had physically, sexually and mentally assaulted her, threatened to kill her and to throw acid on her and/or her relatives’ faces. She asserted that DYP had previous convictions for armed robbery, was a drug dealer and had a fierce temper. She was categorised as a victim of domestic violence.

The police arrested DYP and released him on police bail. One of the conditions was that DYP was not to enter the town of Chichester. Another was that he was not to enter the town of Epsom. DYP knew that XGY’s aunt lived in Epsom and was aware of her address there, so that this police bail condition meant that he might surmise where she had gone. It is XGY’s case that, as a result of the disclosure by the police of the Epsom location, she suffered depression through fear of assault or worse. Although the Epsom disclosure is part of XGY’s claim against the police, it is not part of the claim against the CPS and in any event is not the subject of this appeal.

XGY left Epsom and went to live in a women’s refuge. In March 2020, with the help of a detective constable, D.C. Wells, XGY relocated to an address in Hampshire (“the Hampshire address”). She told the police about her new address and required them to keep it confidential from DYP. She also told the police that during their relationship, DYP had raped her. On 15 April 2020, the police arrested DYP in connection with both the rape allegation and a breach of his bail. They prepared a file for the CPS in advance of the Magistrates’ Court hearing on 16 April. That file included the Hampshire address which had not been marked as confidential.

On 16 April DYP was produced in the Magistrates’ Court on the breach of bail matter. For the hearing, the bail conditions that the police had indicated were the continuation of the ‘non-contact’ condition and the prohibition on entering Chichester. However, it appears that the CPS advocate was concerned these might be insufficient: XGY did not live in Chichester so that condition served no purpose. Instead, the advocate asked for a bail condition that DYP be prevented from going to the Hampshire address, thereby informing DYP of XGY’s new address. As the contemporaneous police log puts it: “CPS have probably put this condition on thinking that they were doing the right thing but clearly this is not right”. Later that day, when D.C. Wells informed XGY of these events, D.C. Wells apparently described it as a “muck up”. (Footnote: ⁴)

In consequence, XGY felt obliged to leave the Hampshire address. There is medical evidence that this exacerbated her depression and caused her post-traumatic stress disorder. DYP was subsequently convicted of six counts of common assault against XGY.