Coghlan v Chief Constable of Cheshire Police & Ors

Coghlan v Chief Constable of Cheshire Police & Ors

The claimant failed to establish that any of the defendants were in law his prosecutor for the purposes of the tort of malicious prosecution, as the CPS made an independent charging decision and there was no evidence or pleading of deliberate suppression or misrepresentation of evidence by the defendants that would make it virtually impossible for the CPS to exercise independent discretion. The claims disclosed no reasonable grounds and had no real prospect of success.

Parties
Claimant: Arran Charlton Coghlan; First Defendant: Chief Constable of Cheshire Police; Second Defendant: Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police; Third Defendant: Director General of the National Crime Agency
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 January 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil / Application to Strike Out And/or Summary Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed against all defendants
Legal Topics
Malicious Prosecution, False Imprisonment, Misfeasance in Public Office, Summary Judgment, Strike Out Applications
Tort Criminal Procedure Malicious Prosecution False Imprisonment Misfeasance in Public Office Summary Judgment Strike Out Applications

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 2 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Arran Charlton Coghlan

Claimant

Chief Constable of Cheshire Police

First Defendant

Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police

Second Defendant

Director General of the National Crime Agency

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Application to Strike Out And/or Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants prosecuted the claimant for the purposes of the tort of malicious prosecution
  2. 2 Whether the claim discloses reasonable grounds for bringing a claim of malicious prosecution against the defendants
  3. 3 Whether summary judgment should be granted against the claimant

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to establish that any of the defendants were in law his prosecutor for the purposes of the tort of malicious prosecution, as the CPS made an independent charging decision and there was no evidence or pleading of deliberate suppression or misrepresentation of evidence by the defendants that would make it virtually impossible for the CPS to exercise independent discretion. The claims disclosed no reasonable grounds and had no real prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed against all defendants

Orders

  • Amended Particulars of Claim against the Second and Third Defendants struck out pursuant to r.3.4(2)(a) for failing to disclose reasonable grounds for bringing the claim
  • Summary judgment granted in favour of all three defendants