England Court of Appeal Upholds Core Immunity for Advocates and Court Participants Versus Uganda’s Penal Weaponization of Contempt: A Comparative Analysis

Waboga David
Oct 16
4 min read

Charles Dickens, in A Tale of Two Cities, would perhaps describe this contrast in the superlative degree, “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.” That timeless line aptly captures the striking divergence in recent judicial developments between England and Uganda.

In England, the Court of Appeal in Chief Constable of Sussex Police v XGY [2025] EWCA Civ 1230 has reaffirmed the principle of core immunity, shielding advocates and court participants from civil liability for statements made and acts done in the ordinary course of judicial proceedings.

Conversely, in Uganda, the High Court in Isaac Kimaze Ssemakadde v Mugisha Hashim Mugisha [2025] UGHCCD 178 applied the law of criminal contempt with rigid severity, using it to punish extrajudicial criticism and thereby signaling a troubling weaponization of contempt powers.

Whereas the English Court sought to preserve the freedom and integrity of courtroom participation through immunity, the Ugandan Court’s stance reflects an increasingly punitive posture, one that treats criticism of the judiciary not as speech to be protected but as defiance to be punished.

In England Core Immunity as a Protective Shield

Chief Constable of Sussex Police v XGY [2025] EWCA Civ 1230

Case Background

In Chief Constable of Sussex Police v XGY [2025] EWCA Civ 1230, XGY, a survivor of severe domestic abuse, reported her former partner, DYP, a convicted armed robber and drug dealer, to Sussex Police for multiple assaults, threats to kill, and threats involving acid attacks.

Following the relationship's end, XGY was relocated several times for her safety, including to a confidential address in Hampshire, which she expressly instructed the police to withhold from DYP.

On 15 April 2020, DYP was arrested for rape and breaching bail conditions. In preparing the prosecution file for the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), Sussex Police included XGY's confidential address without marking it as sensitive.

At DYP's bail hearing the next day, the CPS advocate, unaware of its sensitivity, disclosed the address in open court. This disclosure caused XGY significant distress, forcing her to abandon her property and exacerbating her mental health issues, including depression and post-traumatic stress disorder.

Claims and Procedural History

In February 2022, XGY sued the Chief Constable of Sussex Police (CCSP) and the CPS in Winchester County Court, alleging:

Misuse of private information
Breach of confidence
Violations of the Data Protection Act 2018
Breaches of Articles 2, 3, and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (via the Human Rights Act 1998)

At first instance, HHJ Brownhill struck out the claims relating to the address disclosure on grounds of core immunity, extending it to the police's preparatory disclosure. Reverse summary judgment was also granted on the Human Rights Act claims, finding no realistic prospect of XGY establishing “victim” status under section 7.

The High Court briefly deviated from precedent, adopting a novel "justificationist" approach requiring factual justification for immunity.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal restored HHJ Brownhill’s order, confirming that core immunity applies without case-by-case justification.

Court of Appeal Findings

Core Immunity Applies Without Justification
The CPS advocate's statements, though unfortunate, were spoken "in the ordinary course of court proceedings" and fall squarely within core immunity.
Extension to Preparatory Acts
The police’s unmarked inclusion of XGY’s address in the CPS file is likewise protected, preventing circumvention of the immunity.
Scope Across Claims
All of XGY's statutory and Human Rights Act claims were barred. Parliament did not intend these statutes to abrogate common law immunities.

The court expressed deep sympathy for XGY but emphasized that public policy and long-established principle prevent a legal remedy in these circumstances.

Implications

This decision underscores the strength of core immunity as a shield for courtroom participants, promoting freedom of advocacy and procedural integrity. Public authorities, however, are reminded to maintain strict confidentiality protocols in sensitive cases. Practitioners should note the immunity’s broad application to bail hearings, preparatory acts, and statutory claims. Victims may pursue alternative remedies, such as complaints to the Independent Office for Police Conduct, though these avenues offer no damages.

Uganda: Penal Enforcement of Contempt

In stark contrast, the High Court of Uganda in Isaac Kimaze Ssemakadde v Mugisha Hashim Mugisha [2025] UGHCCD 178 applied criminal contempt with rigid severity. Ssemakadde, President of the Uganda Law Society, publicly criticized a High Court ruling via letters and social media.

The court held that his actions constituted indirect criminal contempt by scandalizing the judiciary, imposing a fixed-term prison sentence.

Unlike civil contempt, which is remedial and coercive, criminal contempt is penal, with no power to suspend or stay the sentence post-conviction. Appeals with bail pending are the only recourse. The Ugandan court’s approach signals a prioritization of judicial authority over freedom of expression, treating extrajudicial criticism as a punishable affront.

Comparative Analysis

These cases illustrate a profound divergence in judicial philosophy;

In England, Core immunity protects participants, encouraging legal advocacy and procedural engagement without fear of civil liability, even when errors occur.

In Uganda; Criminal contempt is used punitively, limiting public commentary on judicial decisions and emphasizing institutional authority over individual rights.

In Dickensian terms, England represents the “best of times” for courtroom participants, safeguarded by predictable legal protections, while Uganda reflects the “worst of times” for critics, constrained by expansive penal sanctions. Both approaches seek to protect the administration of justice, but the means and consequences diverge sharply.

Conclusion

The contrast between England’s reaffirmation of core immunity and Uganda’s strict application of criminal contempt highlights the dilemma of judicial protection and individual rights. England’s model prioritizes procedural freedom and the integrity of courtroom participation. Uganda’s model emphasizes judicial authority, sometimes at the cost of curtailing free speech.

This comparative perspective is a lesson that the administration of justice is not only about the letter of the law but also about how judicial processes engage with the people they serve, a lesson Dickens would no doubt have appreciated in its “superlative degree.”

Read the cases below