Welcome to Civil Appeal

Civilappeal.co.uk is a division and a trading name of falselyaccused.co.uk. Below are the most relevant points of Civil Actions, however, the reader should please bear in mind there is a complete minefield of case law, textbooks and procedure.

Negligence

In respect of wrongful or incompetent prosecution there is generally no civil claim for negligence against the police or CPS. Whilst if acquitted the accused will inevitably feel aggrieved and inconvenienced this has to be balanced against the need for matters to be brought to justice. The case law suggests that to put such a duty of care on the CPS would be too burdensome.

Malicious Prosecution

Time Limit – 6 years from acquittal or whenever the matter was dismissed/discontinued (or from arrest if malicious arrest).

This would be the obvious basis for a civil claim against the police following a person’s acquittal but it is generally confined to cases where it can be shown that the police have fabricated the evidence. In order for it to be proved the claimant would need to show hard evidence of the lack of honest belief in the charges.

The Claimant needs to show 5 things for malicious prosecution:

1. That there has been a Prosecution, which has caused the claimant damage (i.e. defamation, financial, etc.)
2. That the Prosecution was instituted or continued by the defendant (i.e. Accused is charged by the police or information is laid in the magistrates court).
   NB. If a 3rd party deliberately deceives the police by providing false information without which the matter would not have been prosecuted they can become liable.
3. That the Prosecution was terminated in the claimant’s favour (e.g. He was acquitted or the matter was dismissed)
4. That the defendant acted without “reasonable and probable cause” to show this 4 things have to be proved:
   a. Whether the Prosecutor had honest belief in the guilt of the accused
   b. Whether the Prosecutor had honest conviction of the circumstances relied on
   c. Whether this conviction was based on reasonable grounds
   d. Whether the matters relied on constitute “reasonable and probable cause” for the belief in the accused’s guilt.
5. That the defendant acted maliciously (i.e. That there was a specific malicious motive (e.g. desire for the accused to be convicted, that the prosecution was based on false evidence or that there was lack of reasonable and probable cause).

Procedure

Pre-action dispute resolution should be used where possible e.g. internal complaints procedures such IPCC, etc.

Pre-action Protocol

• Claimant should notify the other party in writing setting out the identity of the defendant and any other parties, the nature of the grievance and an indication of the financial value of the claim.
• This letter should be acknowledged by the defendant within 21 days.
• The defendant has a 3 month period during which they can investigate the matter; if they need longer then they should apply accordingly – the claimant should agree to any reasonable request
• Once the investigations are complete a letter of response or settlement should be sent to the claimant
• If the claim is denied then the Claimant can commence proceedings
• Alternatively negotiations can be commenced with the aim of completing them within 6 months from the date of the letter of acknowledgement (i.e. That which is sent by the defendant within 21 days of the Claimant’s initial letter).

Litigation should be the last resort. The court may require proof that alternative dispute resolution has been considered. There is no obligation to comply with the pre-action protocol but it may have costs implications.

To initiate proceedings a Claim Form should be issued and served on the court and the other side. The value of the claim will dictate where the matter is to be heard.

Particulars of Claim can then be served and the matter will proceed in the usual way.

NB. Malicious prosecution trials are heard by judge and jury.

Judicial Review

Time Limit – promptly and within 3 months.

An alternative route would be a Judicial Review however there is a strict time limit for this. Damages are also a discretionary remedy and should only be granted as a last resort. A claimant can win a judicial review but still not be granted any financial remedy. It would have to be shown that the decision of the police to prosecute was illegal, irrational or a breach of natural justice; the most common ground would be if it could be shown that the decision to prosecute was clearly contrary to policy.

Judicial Review pre-action protocol:

• As per above alternative dispute resolution should be considered.
• An initial letter should be sent to the other side setting out the facts and grounds of judicial review.
• The other side should acknowledge service and indicate whether the matter is contested within 21 days.
• If it is contested permission for judicial review will be considered either by the single judge or in a hearing.
• If granted the defendant has 35 days to serve details of their resistance.
• The final matter can then either be decided without a hearing or if a hearing is necessary skeleton arguments will be submitted and the matter will proceed in the normal way.

The difficulty with any of these actions is trying to prove the grounds; police will often embark on an investigation on the basis of intelligence that turns out to be incorrect. It will not necessarily follow that they’ve acted improperly or maliciously.

Local Authority

If it is a local authority that has provided false information to the police then they could be added to a claim under malicious prosecution as set out above or a separate claim if it could be shown that they had been negligent in their actions. The time limit for negligence is 3 years, either from the date of the damage caused or from the claimant’s knowledge of it. The alternative remedy would be to judicially review their decision to pass on that information if it could come within one of the grounds. The JR procedure and time limits would be the same as set out above.