3 ms·

It is not catch-22. This case established that what the people did was wrong, so while they cannot punish them due to QI it establishes the precedent of declari

• dragonwriter 2y ago
  Note that this is (potentially, I haven't read the whole decision and there are ways in which the language reported could be accurate but it would not be precedential in context) exceptional case because the appellate court opined the merits of the underlying conduct despite QI being a threshold issue, which is not the normal case (and, indeed, QI will nor mally prevent the existence of a record on which an appellate court could address the merits of the underlying claim.) Usually, QI leads to a dismissal before the merits are reached; the entire basis for QI is that it is not just a freedom from liability, but a freedom from the risk of having to endure trial. Even if the trial court decides QI doesn't apply and would be inclined to move forward to the merits, that decision on QI is subject to immediate appeal before the case moves forward, per the Supreme Court in Mitchell v Forsyth (1985). So, even if this case is an exception, QI is very much a catch-22 that is a barrier to establishing the same clearly established law that it requires before officers can be held liable.