Rudall v The Crown Prosecution Service & Anor

Rudall v The Crown Prosecution Service & Anor

Claims relating to the 2002 search warrant and 2004-2005 Wolfram II prosecution are statute-barred and must be struck out or summarily dismissed. The claim for malicious prosecution in relation to the 2010-2013 Wolfram I prosecution is arguable and should proceed to trial, as there are legitimate questions regarding reasonable and probable cause and malice. Amendment to plead conspiracy to injure by unlawful means is permitted in relation to the Wolfram I prosecution. Claims for misfeasance in public office and breach of Human Rights Act may proceed only in respect of conduct post-dating 25 April 2008.

Parties
Claimant: Phillip Rudall; First Defendant: The Crown Prosecution Service; Second Defendant: The Chief Constable of South Wales Police
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil / Ruling on Strike Out/summary Judgment Applications and Amendment Application
Outcome
Partial strike out and summary judgment granted; permission to amend claim granted in part; remaining claims to proceed to trial.
Legal Topics
Malicious Prosecution, Misfeasance in Public Office, Conspiracy to Injure, Limitation of Actions, Human Rights Act Claims, Search Warrants, Legal Professional Privilege
Tort Law Criminal Law Human Rights Law Civil Procedure Malicious Prosecution Misfeasance in Public Office Conspiracy to Injure Limitation of Actions +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Phillip Rudall

Claimant

The Crown Prosecution Service

First Defendant

The Chief Constable of South Wales Police

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Ruling on Strike Out/summary Judgment Applications and Amendment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claims relating to search warrant and Wolfram II prosecution are statute-barred
  2. 2 Whether claims for malicious prosecution in Wolfram I prosecution are arguable
  3. 3 Whether claims for misfeasance in public office and Human Rights Act breach can proceed

Ratio Decidendi

Claims relating to the 2002 search warrant and 2004-2005 Wolfram II prosecution are statute-barred and must be struck out or summarily dismissed. The claim for malicious prosecution in relation to the 2010-2013 Wolfram I prosecution is arguable and should proceed to trial, as there are legitimate questions regarding reasonable and probable cause and malice. Amendment to plead conspiracy to injure by unlawful means is permitted in relation to the Wolfram I prosecution. Claims for misfeasance in public office and breach of Human Rights Act may proceed only in respect of conduct post-dating 25 April 2008.

Court Disposition

Partial strike out and summary judgment granted; permission to amend claim granted in part; remaining claims to proceed to trial.

Orders

  • Claims relating to search warrant and Wolfram II prosecution struck out or summarily dismissed.
  • Claim for malicious prosecution in Wolfram I prosecution to proceed to trial.