Irving v Pfingst & Anor

[2021] QCA 280

Queensland Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Torts
2. › Abuse of Legal Process
3. › Malicious Prosecution
4. › Absence of reasonable and probable cause
5. › Subjective and objective aspects
6. › Whether charging officer honestly believed proper case for prosecution
7. › Whether objectively sufficient material to warrant charge
8. › Accessory after the fact charge where no evidence principal offender committed offence
1. Torts
2. › Abuse of Legal Process
3. › Malicious Prosecution
4. › Malice
5. › Whether dominant purpose was proper invocation of criminal law
6. › Whether charge laid to hold suspect in custody while investigating different offence
7. › Inference of malice from absence of reasonable and probable cause
1. Appeal
2. › General Civil Appeal
3. › Appellate review of findings of fact
4. › Findings based on credibility of witnesses
5. › Whether findings glaringly improbable or contrary to compelling inferences
6. › Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118
1. Evidence
2. › Admissibility
3. › Hearsay
4. › Documents
5. › Whether transcript of interview admissible under s 92 Evidence Act 1977 (Qld)
6. › Whether transcript constituted statement made by person interviewed

Quick Take

Where a police officer charges a person as an accessory after the fact without any evidence that the named principal offender committed the offence, and simultaneously suspects the accused of being the principal offender, the objective insufficiency of the material may itself support an inference that the officer could not honestly have believed there was a proper case for prosecution. A trial judge must consider the combined effect of the weakness of the material, the obvious insufficiency of the charge, and evidence of the officer's concurrent suspicion of the accused as the principal offender, rather than assessing each factor in isolation.