DAVID GREIR AGAINST THE CHIEF CONSTABLE OF POLICE SCOTLAND AND THE LORD ADVOCATE [2022] ScotCS CSIH_57 (20 December 2022)

DAVID GREIR AGAINST THE CHIEF CONSTABLE OF POLICE SCOTLAND AND THE LORD ADVOCATE [2022] ScotCS CSIH_57 (20 December 2022)

The court held that the Lord Advocate and the Chief Constable did not maliciously prosecute the pursuer. Although there was no objective reasonable and probable cause, all individuals involved subjectively believed there was sufficient evidence, and no improper motive or malice was established. The police were not the prosecutor as the Crown retained independent judgment. Even if the merits had favoured the pursuer, causation and quantum were not established as losses could not be apportioned between defenders.

Citation
[2022] ScotCS CSIH_57
Parties
Pursuer and Reclaimer: David Grier; Defender and Respondent: The Lord Advocate; Defender and Respondent: The Chief Constable of Police Scotland
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
20 December 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Reclaiming Motion (appeal) / Appeal From First Instance Decision to Inner House, Court of Session
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; reclaiming motion refused.
Legal Topics
Malicious Prosecution, Reasonable and Probable Cause, Malice, Prosecutorial Discretion, Police Liability, Causation, Quantum of Damages
Tort Criminal Law Civil Procedure Malicious Prosecution Reasonable and Probable Cause Malice Prosecutorial Discretion Police Liability +2 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 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Grier

Pursuer and Reclaimer

The Lord Advocate

Defender and Respondent

The Chief Constable of Police Scotland

Defender and Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Reclaiming Motion (appeal) / Appeal From First Instance Decision to Inner House, Court of Session

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Lord Advocate and/or the Chief Constable maliciously prosecuted the pursuer
  2. 2 Whether there was reasonable and probable cause for prosecution
  3. 3 Whether malice was present in the prosecution

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the Lord Advocate and the Chief Constable did not maliciously prosecute the pursuer. Although there was no objective reasonable and probable cause, all individuals involved subjectively believed there was sufficient evidence, and no improper motive or malice was established. The police were not the prosecutor as the Crown retained independent judgment. Even if the merits had favoured the pursuer, causation and quantum were not established as losses could not be apportioned between defenders.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; reclaiming motion refused.

Orders

  • No decree for damages in favour of the pursuer.
  • No finding of malicious prosecution against either defender.