Brian MacGregor against Iain Livingstone QPM, Chief Constable (Court of Session) [2024] CSOH 109 (13 December 2024)

Brian MacGregor against Iain Livingstone QPM, Chief Constable (Court of Session) [2024] CSOH 109 (13 December 2024)

The pursuer's pleadings, though lengthy and at times general, contain sufficient averments of deliberate failure to investigate, suppression of exculpatory evidence, and improper motive to support a relevant case of malice and lack of reasonable and probable cause. These are matters for proof and cannot be dismissed at the debate stage. The expert report's admissibility is a matter for further consideration at proof. The defender's challenge to relevancy and specification fails.

Citation
[2024] CSOH 109
Parties
Pursuer: Brian MacGregor; Defender: Iain Livingstone QPM, Chief Constable
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
13 December 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Action for Damages (delict/malicious Prosecution) / Debate on Relevancy and Specification (pleadings Challenge)
Outcome
Defender's plea to relevancy and specification refused; case to proceed to proof before answer.
Legal Topics
Malicious Prosecution, Reasonable and Probable Cause, Malice, Suppression of Evidence, Police Duties in Reporting Crime, Specification of Pleadings
Delict Police Law Criminal Procedure Malicious Prosecution Reasonable and Probable Cause Malice Suppression of Evidence Police Duties in Reporting Crime +1 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 4 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brian MacGregor

Pursuer

Iain Livingstone QPM, Chief Constable

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil Action for Damages (delict/malicious Prosecution) / Debate on Relevancy and Specification (pleadings Challenge)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer's pleadings disclose a relevant and sufficiently specified case of malicious police reporting and suppression of exculpatory evidence
  2. 2 Whether the pursuer has pled a relevant case of lack of reasonable and probable cause for the police submitting the SPR
  3. 3 Whether the pursuer's averments on malice are relevant and sufficient for proof

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer's pleadings, though lengthy and at times general, contain sufficient averments of deliberate failure to investigate, suppression of exculpatory evidence, and improper motive to support a relevant case of malice and lack of reasonable and probable cause. These are matters for proof and cannot be dismissed at the debate stage. The expert report's admissibility is a matter for further consideration at proof. The defender's challenge to relevancy and specification fails.

Court Disposition

Defender's plea to relevancy and specification refused; case to proceed to proof before answer.

Orders

  • Proof before answer allowed on all issues.
  • No dismissal of the pursuer's case at this stage.