The claimant sought to have restored his claim for malicious prosecution.
Held: ‘The fact that there might be an arguable case that the prosecutor was activated by malice, that is to say, to prosecute for an improper motive, does not of itself demonstrate a want of honest belief that there was reasonable and probable cause to mount the prosecution.’ The plaintiff’s claim was bound to fail.
Judges:
The President Lady Justice Hale And Mr Justice Hart
Citations:
[2002] EWCA Civ 907
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Herniman v Smith HL 1938
The court considered the tort of malicious prosecution.
Held: It is the duty of a prosecutor to find out not whether there is a possible defence, but whether there is a reasonable and probable cause for prosecution. The House approved the . .
Cited – Hicks v Faulkner 1878
Before charging a prisoner, a police officer must have ‘an honest belief in the guilt of the accused based upon a full conviction, founded upon reasonable grounds, of the existence of a state of circumstances, which, assuming them to be true, would . .
Cited – Clements v Ohrly 1847
Similarity of handwriting alone is not enough to constitute probable cause for charging a person with forgery without evidence of other circumstances. . .
Cited – Glinski v McIver HL 1962
The court considered the tort of malicious prosecution when committed by a police officer, saying ‘But these cases must be carefully watched so as to see that there really is some evidence from his conduct that he knew it was a groundless charge.’ . .
Cited by:
Cited – McHarg v Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police ChD 9-Jan-2004
The claimant police officer sought damages for malicious prosecution. The defendant applied for the claim to be struck out.
Held: There was insufficient evidence to establish malice. The claim was struck out. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Torts – Other
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.175152