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

The Judgment of HHJ Brownhill: A Summary

HHJ Brownhill concluded that the claims in respect of the Hampshire address should be struck out. She concluded that the CPS had an immunity from suit in respect of things said in court which meant that, because the only claim against the CPS arose from the Hampshire disclosure, the action against them must fail. She concluded that the police were entitled to rely on that immunity (by extension) in respect of the provision of the Hampshire address, so that the claim against the police in respect of the Hampshire disclosure would be struck out.

In reaching these conclusions, HHJ Brownhill held that whilst any new extension of an established immunity required detailed examination, the law did not require a trial or investigation into the relevant public policy considerations where the case fell within an already established immunity. Further, Hall did not have the effect of removing an advocate’s immunity, other than for professional negligence claims by the advocate’s own client. The disclosure of the Hampshire address by the CPS advocate fell squarely within the “advocate immunity”. As for the police, she stated that the inclusion of the Hampshire address in the CPS file was similar to the file note in Taylor. The police conduct fell within an established extended immunity.

HHJ Brownhill also concluded that XGY did not fulfil the section 7 criterion for bringing a HRA claim in any event, and granted the CPS and the police reverse summary judgment on that issue. We deal with that aspect of the appeal in greater detail in Section L below.

Accordingly, HHJ Brownhill struck out the claims based on the Hampshire address against both appellants.