Malicious prosecution is a deliberate common law offence. Like the crime of abuse of process, its elements include (1) the intentional (and malicious) initiation and prosecution (or initiation or prosecution) of a lawsuit (civil or criminal) brought (2) without probable cause and (3) dismissed in favor of the victim of malicious prosecution. In some jurisdictions, the term “malicious prosecution” refers to the illegal opening of criminal proceedings, while the term “malicious application” refers to the illegal opening of civil proceedings. Anyone who has been acquitted of the crime in question or who has been abandoned in the corresponding case against him can take malicious legal action – provided that he can prove that the law enforcement agency acted maliciously when it initiated the proceedings against him. Home Insights Blogs Criminal Law Blog Malicious Prosecutions and the Risk to Private Prosecutors Seeking high-quality legal assistance is the key to a successful trial for malicious prosecutions. In the St. Pauls Chambers, members of the Chambers are experts in all matters of police law, including measures against the police and police discipline. Our team is led by Sam Green QC, who has extensive experience in representing clients in malicious prosecution cases. If you or your customer file or defend a malicious lawsuit, please feel free to contact us today. Jeremy Clifford v The Chief Constable of the Hertfordshire Constabulary [2011] EWHC 815 (QB) concerned an applicant who believed he had been maliciously prosecuted for possession of indecent images. The officer in question was accused of acting maliciously because he admitted to a colleague that he wanted to give more weight to another charge against the applicant. He had also withheld from CPC information about the computer images obtained as evidence, which was found in a preliminary file on the complainant`s computer, suggesting that the images were unsolicited “pop-ups”. There have also been significant delays and obfuscations in returning property to the claimant, which has caused significant inconvenience to the claimant`s work.
Mackay J. added that malevolence “may be inferred from the absence of reasonable and probable cause if the evidence warrants it.” Taken together, these circumstances gave the image of an official pursuing the applicant with an inappropriate motive. Moulton therefore points out two important points regarding “reasonable and probable reasons” in malicious law enforcement cases. First, the quality of the evidence needed by the investigating authority to justify its continued efforts is not particularly high. In addition, officials pursuing the case do not need to be convinced of an accused`s guilt, but should believe that it is more likely than not that he or she will be guilty. Second, and most importantly, prosecutors can be assured that inconsistencies in the evidence, such as . B contradictory testimony does not necessarily mean that the charges are inappropriate and should be dropped. Finally, Mr. Willers claimed damages, which represented the difference between the total amount of the defence costs of the 2016 proceedings and the amount of costs ordered in his favour; and for damages resulting from hardship, damage to health, damage to reputation and loss of income. Unfortunately, for litigants who hoped the case would explain what types of damages could be considered for malicious lawsuits in a previous civil lawsuit and how they would be calculated, the question remained what loss could be recoverable. In particular, the offence of malicious prosecution only protects the defendant`s right to be free from frivolous actions by malicious plaintiffs. For a variety of public policy reasons, courts have consistently refused to allow otherwise – a malicious defense offense that would protect plaintiffs` right to be immune from frivolous defenses advanced by defendants.
[4] Some of the ways in which malicious prosecutions can be evident with respect to police are as follows: Allegations of malicious prosecutions require a high level of evidence, and it is also necessary to establish a ground for malicious prosecution. We will meticulously build a case to make a claim for malicious lawsuits. Allegations of malicious prosecutions require the plaintiff to prove that the police had no reason to prosecute. The outcome of legal proceedings must also have been in favour of the defendant; for example, that the case was dismissed or the defendant was found not guilty. These aspects of a malicious pursuit can be difficult to prove. So, if you`re worried that you`ve experienced something similar that has caused you a loss (whether for your freedom or financially) or damage to your reputation, it`s important to talk to a specialized lawyer to give you the best chance of determining what happened and getting compensation. to which you may be entitled. Malicious prosecutions refer to the police (or other law enforcement agency) who maliciously lay charges against a person or pursue a prosecution with malicious intent. A malicious prosecution complaint may arise if the police or other law enforcement agency initiates and/or pursues proceedings against a person in bad faith or malice. Sixteen U.S. states [which ones?] require another element of malicious prosecution. This element, commonly referred to as the English rule, states that in addition to filling in all other malicious elements of law enforcement, one must also prove a violation other than the normal disadvantage of a trial.
This rule is limited to equitable damages such as loss of profits and excludes damages that cannot be measured by law (e.B reputational damage). However, the main case in Willers v. Joyce confirms that malicious civil lawsuits are unlikely to be an easy option. Although clarification has been provided on the parameters of the crime, the case shows that the thresholds that must be reached before a claim can be accepted are high. In addition, it can be very difficult to prove that a proceeding was initiated without reasonable and probable cause and maliciously, as this requires the analysis and evaluation of a party`s subjective opinions and there may be practical difficulties in obtaining relevant but privileged documents. The case also leaves unanswered crucial legal questions about the test of malevolence and refundable loss. Further information may need to come from future case law. Walker Morris will follow with interest the evolution of this new field of law and will report on all major developments. .