Key Facts
- •Claimant, a serving Metropolitan Police officer, was subject to criminal and disciplinary proceedings following a complaint of assault.
- •The complaint stemmed from an incident where a member of the public was assaulted by a masked firearms officer during a police operation.
- •The Claimant was identified as the assailant, despite controversial identification evidence.
- •The Claimant was acquitted of the criminal charge after a short jury deliberation.
- •Despite the acquittal, the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) directed misconduct proceedings against the Claimant.
- •The Claimant brought claims against the IOPC for malicious prosecution and misfeasance in public office.
Legal Principles
A claim for malicious prosecution cannot be made in respect of disciplinary proceedings.
Gregory v Portsmouth City Council [2000] 1 A.C. 419
To succeed in malicious prosecution, a claimant must prove: (1) proceedings were prosecuted by the defendant; (2) defendant acted without reasonable and probable cause; (3) defendant acted maliciously; (4) proceedings were unsuccessful.
Martin v Watson [1996] 1 A.C. 74
A complainant may be considered a prosecutor if they deliberately manipulated the authorities into taking a course they would not otherwise have taken.
Martin v Watson [1996] 1 A.C. 74; AH v. AB [2009] EWCA Civ 1092
The CPS's independent decision to prosecute breaks the chain of causation, unless the complainant knowingly gave false information.
AH v. AB [2009] EWCA Civ 1092
For misfeasance in public office, the claimant must prove the defendant's officers acted dishonestly or in bad faith.
Three Rivers District Council v. Governor and Company of the Bank of England (No.3) [2003] 2 AC 1
Outcomes
Malicious prosecution claim struck out.
The CPS, not the IOPC, was the prosecutor. The IOPC's referral to the CPS did not establish that the IOPC was the prosecutor, and the Claimant failed to demonstrate lack of reasonable and probable cause or malice.
Summary judgment for the Defendant on the misfeasance in public office claim.
The Claimant failed to show that the IOPC acted dishonestly or in bad faith. Even if the decision to pursue misconduct proceedings was unlawful, it did not establish dishonesty or bad faith.