(High Court of Australia) Dixon J said: ‘that no responsibility was incurred by one who confines himself to bringing before some proper authority information which he does not believe, even although in the hope that a prosecution will be instituted, if it is actually instituted as the result of an independent discretion on the part of that authority . . but, if the discretion is misled by false information, or is otherwise practised upon in order to procure the laying of the charge, those who thus brought about the prosecution are responsible’.
Judges:
Dixon J
Citations:
[1935] 53 CLR 343
Jurisdiction:
Australia
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 . .
Cited – Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis v Copeland CA 22-Jul-2014
The defendant appealed against the award of damages for assault, false imprisonment and malicious prosection, saying that the question posed for the jury were misdirections, and that the jury’s decision was perverse. The claimant was attending the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Commonwealth, Torts – Other
Updated: 09 November 2022; Ref: scu.381289