Irving v Pfingst

The case of Irving v Pfingst involved the appellant, Mr Irving, who brought an action against the respondent, Ms Pfingst, a police officer, for malicious prosecution. The dispute centred on whether Ms Pfingst had acted with malice in charging Mr Irving as an accessory after the fact to the armed robbery of a bank, and whether she had reasonable and probable cause to do so when she concurrently suspected him of being the principal offender. The Queensland Court of Appeal heard the appeal.

The primary legal issues were whether Ms Pfingst honestly believed there was a proper case for prosecution of Mr Irving as an accessory after the fact and if the accessory charge was laid without reasonable and probable cause. Additionally, the Court had to consider whether Mr Irving proved malice in the charging process and whether the trial judge correctly admitted or excluded certain evidence, including an expert report and a transcript of an interview.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge’s conclusions on the Accessory Charge were incorrect. The judge had failed to appreciate the strict requirements of the Accessory Charge, which necessitated proof that Mr Irving knew Suthers had committed the robbery and that he assisted Suthers to evade punishment. The judge's findings were demonstrated to be wrong by the evidence and an understanding of the different bases of criminal responsibility. As for the evidence, the Court held that while some parts of the expert report were correctly excluded, the exclusion of other parts containing reference to research in the field was improper and detracted from the effect of the report. The Court also found that the trial judge erred in excluding the transcript from evidence due to its unreliability. These errors amounted to substantial wrongs warranting a new trial.

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside certain orders, and gave judgment for the appellant on the malicious prosecution claim for the Accessory Charge. The case was remitted for assessment of damages and consideration of costs. The parties were directed to submit written costs submissions within 14 days of the judgment.