The Court held that while the initial arrest was lawful under LEPRA s 99 given the Triple Zero call, complainant confirmation, and public safety concerns, the tort of malicious prosecution was established because within approximately 24 hours of arrest, the investigating officer knew that forensics found no physical evidence, ballistics opined the shed indentations were not caused by bullets, and the sole complainant had not witnessed the plaintiff firing — yet the charge was maintained for nearly five months. Malice was inferred from the officer's continuation of proceedings in the absence of any evidence supporting the charge, which constituted an improper purpose. The Court accepted the plaintiff suffered PTSD on the strength of multiple treating and medico-legal opinions, notwithstanding significant inconsistencies between what the plaintiff told a psychologist when seeking to regain his firearms licence and what he reported for litigation purposes, applying the eggshell skull principle to the plaintiff's obsessional personality traits.
The full text is available to signed-in members.