What is Malicious Prosecution in Law of tort
1. INTRODUCTION
Malicious prosecution is a judicial proceeding instituted by one person against another person with a wrongful intention to proceed without a reasonable cause to sustain it.
2. MEANING
Malicious = having or showing a desire to cause harm to someone
Prosecution = the act of officially accusing someone of committing an illegal act, esp. By bringing a case against that person in a court of law
3. DEFINITION
Malicious Prosecution is defined as a judicial proceeding instituted by one person against the another, from wrongful or improper motive, without any reasonable and probable cause to justify it.
According to Blacks law dictionary
The institution of criminal or civil proceeding for an improper purpose and without probable cause.
Exception to the general rule
As a general rule the intention of the wrongdoer is irrelevant for the imposition of tortious liability. However, the tort of malicious prosecution is an exception to this general rule as the intent of the defendant to misuse the process of justice in necessary to be proved.
4. ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT OF MALICIOUS PROSECUTION
It is the institution, against an innocent person of unsuccessful criminal, bankruptcy or liquidation proceedings without reasonable and probable cause and in malicious spirit.
(1) ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS OF MALICIOUS PROSECUTION:
In an action for malicious criminal prosecution, the plaintiff has to prove the following:
(i) Prosecution:
That he was prosecuted by the defendant on a criminal charge or in a bankruptcy or liquidation proceedings.
(ii) Termination of proceedings in his favor:
That the proceedings terminated in plaintiff's favor, as no action for malicious prosecution lies until the prosecution or other proceedings has terminated in favor of the person complaining of it
(iii) Without reasonable or probable cause:
That the defendant in so prosecution acted without reasonable and probable cause. If there are reasonable grounds for the defendant's instituting the proceedings, he would not be liable even if his motive was improper.
(iv) Malicious intention:
That the prosecution was instituted with malicious intention, i.e., from an indirect and improper motive, and not in furtherance of justice. The gust of the action of malicious prosecution is malice or improper motive.
(v) Damage:
That the plaintiff has suffered damage as a result thereof. The plaintiff must prove that he has suffered in person, reputation or pocket, when the proceedings are other than criminal, e.g., bankruptcy proceedings.
5. KINDS
Following are the kinds of malicious prosecution
• Malicious criminal prosecution
• Malicious civil prosecution
• Malicious arrest
• Malicious maintenance and champerty
Malicious criminal prosecution:
it is an institution of a criminal charge against an innocent person and includes an unsuccessful charge of criminal bankruptcy.
Malicious civil prosecution:
these are cause of civil nature where reputation of parties is of essence.
Malicious arrest:
malicious arrest is an act of intentionally setting the law in motion to result the arrest of another person without a reason. This amounts to abuse of process and falls within the domain of it.
Malicious maintenance and champerty:
in England since the era of Justinian Edward 1 and 3, writ of champerty, writ of conspiracy which was superseded by the action against unlawful maintenance have been reported in the register of early writs.
6. BURDEN OF PROOF
The onus of proof in an action for malicious prosecution always lie on the plaintiff who was the
defendant in the earlier maliciously filed suit.
7. Case laws with titles, holdings, and brief descriptions related to malicious prosecution in tort:
Baker v. City of New York (2017)
Held: The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, stating that the police officer acted with malice and without probable cause when he arrested the plaintiff for a crime he did not commit. The plaintiff was awarded damages for malicious prosecution.
Description: In this case, the plaintiff was wrongfully arrested by a police officer who fabricated evidence and knowingly initiated a baseless criminal prosecution against him. The court found that the officer acted with malicious intent and without probable cause, leading to a successful malicious prosecution claim.