NSW v Spedding

(2023) 112 NSWLR 96; [2023] NSWCA 180

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Torts
2. › Malicious prosecution
3. › Institution of proceedings
4. › Identification of prosecutors
5. › Whether police officers remain prosecutors after DPP takes carriage
6. › Distinction between institution and maintenance of proceedings
7. › Whether police maintained prosecution by controlling and withholding material
1. Torts
2. › Malicious prosecution
3. › Absence of reasonable and probable cause
4. › Whether actual knowledge of exculpatory material required
5. › Whether sufficient that material was available to prosecutor
6. › Proceedings commenced for dominant purpose of advancing unrelated investigation
7. › Basic investigative tasks not completed prior to arrest
1. Torts
2. › Malicious prosecution
3. › Malice
4. › What constitutes
5. › Whether malice can be inferred from improper purpose underpinning commencement of proceedings
6. › Whether actual knowledge of exculpatory material required
7. › Whether improper purpose not disclosed to ODPP precludes finding of malice against ODPP
1. Torts
2. › Collateral abuse of process
3. › Who may commit
4. › Whether tort can be committed by police officer who is not party to criminal proceedings
5. › Whether vicarious liability renders this immaterial
6. › Whether maintenance of proceedings relevant to tort

Quick Take

Reasonable and probable cause in malicious prosecution claims is assessed by reference to material available to the prosecutor (not actual knowledge), and police officers may be found to have 'maintained' a prosecution even after the DPP takes carriage where they control disclosure of material.