HD v State of New South Wales

The case of HD v State of New South Wales concerned a claim for malicious prosecution brought by the appellant, HD, against the respondent, the State of New South Wales. The dispute arose from an interim apprehended domestic violence order (ADVO) obtained by police against HD on behalf of his daughter, which was followed by a police prosecution of an assault charge against HD. The proceedings were heard in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the police prosecutor acted without reasonable and probable cause in prosecuting the assault charge, whether the credit-based findings concerning the prosecutor's subjective belief were demonstrably wrong according to the test in *Fox v Percy*, whether the prosecutor acted maliciously, and whether the prosecutor's actions were motivated by an improper purpose, specifically to support the ADVO proceedings.

The Court of Appeal considered the evidence regarding the prosecutor's state of mind and the basis for the prosecution. It applied the principles governing malicious prosecution claims, including the requirement to prove a lack of reasonable and probable cause and malice. The Court examined whether the prosecutor's belief in the guilt of the accused was reasonably held and whether the prosecution was instituted or continued for an improper purpose.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision of the lower court. The appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs.