(Court of Appeal of New Zealand) Richardson J said: ‘a defendant who has procured the institution of criminal proceedings by the police is regarded as responsible in law for the initiation of the prosecution . . that requires close analysis of the particular circumstances . . It does not follow that there is any call for modifying the test which has been developed in the decisions of this court for determining whether a third party is responsible in an action for malicious prosecution for criminal proceedings instituted by the police. What is required is a cautious application of that test where the police have conducted an investigation and decided to prosecute. The core requirement is that the defendant actually procured the use of the power of the State to hurt the plaintiff. One should never assume that tainted evidence persuaded the police to prosecute. In some very special cases, however, the prosecutor may in practical terms have been obliged to act on apparently reliable and damning evidence supplied to the police. The onus properly rests on the plaintiff to establish that it was the false evidence tendered by a third party which led the police to prosecute before that party may be characterised as having procured the prosecution.’
Judges:
Richardson J
Citations:
[1989] 3NZLR 187
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – The Ministry of Justice (Sued As The Home Office) v Scott CA 20-Nov-2009
The claimant had been falsely accused of assault by five prison officers. The defendant appealed against a refusal to strike out a claim of of malicious prosecution.
Held: Proceedings for malicious prosecution cannot be regarded as being . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Torts – Other
Updated: 09 November 2022; Ref: scu.381290