In a case alleging malicious prosecution, the existence of reasonable and probable cause is a question for the judge and not for the jury.
Lord Chelmsford said: ‘[T]here can be no doubt since the case of Panton v Williams, in which the question was solemnly decided in the Exchequer Chamber, that what is reasonable and probable cause in an action for malicious prosecution, or for false imprisonment, is to be determined by the Judge . . No definite rule can be laid down for the exercise of the Judge’s judgment. Each case must depend upon its own circumstances, and the result is a conclusion drawn by each Judge for himself, whether the facts found by the jury, in his opinion, constitute a defence to the action.’
Judges:
Lord Chelmsford
Citations:
(1870) LR 4 HL 521, (1870) 39 LJEx 177
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Sinclair v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire and British Telecommunications Plc CA 12-Dec-2000
The claimant had been prosecuted, but the charge was dismissed as an abuse of process. He now appealed a strike out of his civil claim for damages for malicious prosecution.
Held: The appeal failed. The decision to dismiss the criminal charge . .
Cited – Alford v Cambridgeshire Police CA 24-Feb-2009
The claimant police officer had been held after an accident when he was in a high speed pursuit of a vehicle into the neighbouring respondent’s area. The prosecution had been discontinued, and he now appealed against rejection of his claims for . .
Cited – Howarth v Gwent Constabulary and Another QBD 1-Nov-2011
The claimant alleged malicious prosecution and misfeasance in public office against the defendant. He had been charged with perverting the course of justice. He had worked for a firm of solicitors specialising in defending road traffic prosecutions. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Torts – Other
Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.196691
