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

The Police Appeal: Are They Protected By An Immunity?

Having regard to the principles set out above, the police’s preparation of the case for the bail hearing was covered by the extended immunity identified in Watson, Taylor and CLG. There can be no doubt that the preparation of the file for the CPS was part of the process of criminal investigation and the administration of justice. With the removal of the erroneous “evidential” requirement identified by Ritchie J, this case is no different to CLG and the same result must eventuate. A finding that no immunity applied to the police activity would outflank the core immunity of the CPS advocate.

As set out above, DYP was accused of serious criminal offences. There was an application for bail. It was critical that XGY’s address was provided by the police to the CPS. As in Gizzonio (at [166]), its provision was “part of the investigatory or preparatory process in criminal proceedings. Absolute immunity therefore applies.”

A comparison with Taylor in particular supports this conclusion. First, as in Taylor, the police were providing written information as part of their criminal investigation (albeit via the CPS rather than directly). Secondly, immunity was held to apply in Taylor in relation to two documents produced some time before there were any criminal proceedings. In the present case, the Hampshire address was information for a bail hearing which took place as part of ongoing criminal proceedings. Thirdly, neither of the documents covered by the immunity in Taylor (a file note and a letter to the Attorney General of the Isle of Man) was “evidence”. The file note was not to be evidence (as confirmed by Lord Hoffman at 213H). Nor was there any suggestion that the letter would be “evidence”.

Though this analysis is not necessary for the determination of these appeals, and we note the absence of any ground of appeal on this point, for the sake of completeness, we should record our disagreement with Ritchie J’s conclusion that the announcement by the CPS advocate of the address in open court broke the chain of causation flowing from the open inclusion of XGY’s address in the police file. It was entirely foreseeable that the content of the police file as conveyed to the CPS advocate would be deployed by the CPS advocate in open court at the bail hearing, as, in the event, it was.

For these reasons, we would allow the principal grounds of the police’s appeal. The established extension of the core immunity that applies to the police conduct means that XGY’s claims against them are doomed to fail.