Irving v Pfingst

Case [2020] QSC 280

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:  Irving v Pfingst [2020] QSC 280
PARTIES:  TERRY IRVING
(Plaintiff)
v
HELEN MAREE PFINGST
(First Defendant)
THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND
(Second Defendant)
FILE NO/S:  BS 234 of 1999
DIVISION:  Trial Division
PROCEEDING:  Trial
ORIGINATING 
COURT:  Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:  10 September 2020
DELIVERED AT:  Brisbane
HEARING DATE:  11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 19, 20, 21 November 2019 and 6 February
2020
JUDGE:  Brown J
ORDER:  The order of the Court is that:
1.  The plaintiff’s claim is dismissed.
2. The parties provide submissions as to costs within 7

days of the delivery of judgment.

CATCHWORDS: 

TORTS – ABUSE OF LEGAL PROCESS – MALICIOUS PROSECUTION – GENERALLY – where first defendant

arrested plaintiff for accessory after the fact for an armed

robbery on 18 May 1993 – where two other armed robberies occurred in in late-1992 and mid-1993 – where plaintiff

contends first defendant abused process in taking body

samples – where plaintiff contends first defendant mislead court during bail application – where plaintiff contends first defendant did not honestly believe guilt of accessory charge –

whether reasonable and probable cause in prosecuting
accessory charge – whether first defendant actuated by motive
other than proper invocation of criminal law in prosecuting
accessory charge

TORTS – ABUSE OF LEGAL PROCESS – MALICIOUS PROSECUTION – GENERALLY– where first defendant

arrested plaintiff for the armed robbery on 25 May 1993 –
where plaintiff contends exculpatory evidence omitted from

evidence – where plaintiff contends first defendant gave false evidence at committal – where plaintiff contends first defendant only made inculpatory evidence into statements –

where plaintiff contends first defendant embellished and

manipulated evidence to strengthen case – whether first defendant prosecutor in maintaining armed robbery charge –

whether reasonable and probable cause in prosecuting armed
robbery charge – whether first defendant actuated by motive
other than proper invocation of criminal law in prosecuting
armed robbery charge

TORTS – INTERFERENCE WITH THE PERSON – FALSE IMPRISONMENT – GENERALLY – where plaintiff was arrested for accessory to armed robbery – where plaintiff imprisoned for three days prior to a bail application – where magistrate denied bail – whether there was lawful justification

for imprisonment

Beckett v State of New South Wales (2013) 248 CLR 432,
cited
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336, considered
Camden v McKenzie [2008] 1 Qd R 39; [2007] QCA 136,
cited

A v State of New South Wales (2007) 230 CLR 500, followed considered

McFadzean v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy

Mitchell v John Heine & Son Ltd (1938) 38 SR (NSW) 466,
followed
Myer Stores Ltd v Soo [1991] 2 VR 597, considered
Neat Holdings Pty Ltd v Karajan Holdings Pty Ltd (1992) 67
ALJR 170, considered
Nguyen v Cosmopolitan Homes [2008] NSWCA 246,
considered

Unit [2007] 20 VR 250, cited considered

Onassis v Vergottis [1968] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 403, cited

Seabrook v Asher [2006] QCA 238, considered
Skrijel v Mengler [2003] VSC 270, considered

Continue reading Irving v Pfingst

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Irving v Pfingst [2020] QSC 280
Case
[2020] QSC 280
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Irving v Pfingst, Mr Irving brought a claim against Ms Pfingst, alleging malicious prosecution and false imprisonment. The case was heard in the relevant Australian court, which had to decide whether Mr Irving’s allegations were substantiated. The primary legal issue was whether Ms Pfingst had acted without an honest belief in Mr Irving’s guilt, thereby lacking reasonable and probable cause, which would be necessary for a malicious prosecution claim. Additionally, the court had to determine whether Mr Irving was falsely imprisoned by Ms Pfingst.

The court examined the evidence presented by Mr Irving and Ms Pfingst. It found that Mr Irving failed to establish that Ms Pfingst did not have an honest belief in his guilt or that the evidence did not warrant prosecution. The court held that the evidence provided by Mr Irving was not strong enough to support an inference of malice or to reject Ms Pfingst's direct evidence. Consequently, the court concluded that there was reasonable and probable cause for the prosecution, and thus, the claim for malicious prosecution was dismissed. Furthermore, the court found that Mr Irving was not falsely imprisoned, as he had effectively abandoned this claim during the proceedings.

The court's reasoning was grounded in the need for a high evidential threshold to support allegations of malicious prosecution and false imprisonment. Given the lack of substantial evidence to substantiate Mr Irving's claims, the court found in favour of Ms Pfingst. The court's final order dismissed Mr Irving's claims against Ms Pfingst in their entirety.

Orders

Orders of the court

The order of the Court is that:

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Mr Irving’s false imprisonment claim fails. Conclusions By reference to the matters which the Mr Irving submits that the Court should find in its ultimate findings:[586] [586] Plaintiff’s submissions at [3]-[10]. Based on the probable inference where a number of circumstances Given that I have not been satisfied that Mr Irving established the facts set out above or find the probable inference is that the fact exists, the inference which he seeks to have drawn from those facts, namely that the conduct of Ms Pfingst was consistent with her not having an honest belief in the guilt of Mr Irving and that the evidence did not warrant prosecution.[587] Nor do I find that there was an absence of reasonable and probable cause in respect of either charge on the basis of insufficient evidence given the available evidence to support the charge. In that regard, the evidence relied upon to support the inference of a lack of honest belief of Ms Pfingst was tenuous and did not rise anywhere near the necessary evidential threshold required to be met to draw such an inference, or to cause the Court to reject the direct evidence of Ms Pfingst. [587] Mr Irving’s submissions also frame it differently in contending that such a belief could not be founded It must be said that the evidence relied upon to support an inference of malice was in some respects even more tenuous and did not rise anywhere near the necessary evidential threshold required to be met to draw such an inference or to cause the Court to reject the direct evidence of Ms Pfingst The claim for false imprisonment was effectively abandoned but in any event I do not find that Mr Irving was falsely imprisoned. Orders I therefore order that: And could be liable if he drove the getaway car or gave it to somebody for use in the Robbery. Criminal Code, s 7(a) & s 7(b) or (c). Exhibit 1 at 1. Exhibit 1 at 133.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.