Rudall v The Crown Prosecution Service & Anor

Rudall v The Crown Prosecution Service & Anor

The claim for malicious prosecution fails because the claimant did not prove that the prosecutor lacked honest belief or reasonable and probable cause. The evidence was not plainly inadmissible, and there was no cogent evidence of malice. The prosecutor acted honestly and professionally, and the procedural steps taken were justified. Claims for misfeasance in public office and breach of s.6 Human Rights Act also fail as they are parasitical upon malicious prosecution.

Parties
Claimant: Phillip Rudall; Defendant: The Crown Prosecution Service; Defendant: The Chief Constable of South Wales Police
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Trial on Liability
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Malicious Prosecution, Misfeasance in Public Office, Breach of Human Rights Act S.6, Reasonable and Probable Cause, Malice, Admissibility of Evidence, Search Warrants, Audit Trail, Prosecutorial Decision Making
Tort Human Rights Criminal Procedure Malicious Prosecution Misfeasance in Public Office Breach of Human Rights Act S.6 Reasonable and Probable Cause Malice +4 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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Phillip Rudall

Claimant

The Crown Prosecution Service

Defendant

The Chief Constable of South Wales Police

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment After Trial on Liability

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prosecution of Mr Rudall was without reasonable and probable cause
  2. 2 Whether the prosecution was motivated by malice
  3. 3 Admissibility of key evidence (TE/91)

Ratio Decidendi

The claim for malicious prosecution fails because the claimant did not prove that the prosecutor lacked honest belief or reasonable and probable cause. The evidence was not plainly inadmissible, and there was no cogent evidence of malice. The prosecutor acted honestly and professionally, and the procedural steps taken were justified. Claims for misfeasance in public office and breach of s.6 Human Rights Act also fail as they are parasitical upon malicious prosecution.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claim for malicious prosecution dismissed
  • Claims for misfeasance in public office and breach of s.6 Human Rights Act dismissed