Landini v State of New South Wales

In the case of Landini v State of New South Wales, the plaintiff, Mr Landini, brought an action for malicious prosecution against the State of New South Wales. The dispute involved separate criminal charges brought against Mr Landini in 1980, where he was accused of fabricating evidence in relation to each charge. The primary legal issues the court had to determine were whether the suppression of fabricated evidence constituted the maintenance or continuation of the criminal proceedings, the Crown's vicarious liability at common law and under the Vicarious Liability Act, and the applicable standard of proof in a malicious prosecution action. Furthermore, the court had to consider the principles of circumstantial evidence in relation to proof of criminal conduct in civil proceedings, the Briginshaw standard, and the assessment of damages, including exemplary damages.

The court's reasoning began with an analysis of the principles applicable to malicious prosecution actions, including the Briginshaw standard. The court noted that the standard of proof in civil proceedings involving allegations of criminal conduct was not restricted to admissible evidence, but rather could be based on circumstantial evidence. The court found that there was significant circumstantial evidence which provided a reasonable basis for a belief in the prosecutor's mind as to Mr Landini's guilt. The reasonableness of the belief was established on the basis of investigations, regardless of the alleged fabricated evidence. The court also considered the credibility of a former police officer's disclosures concerning the fabrication of evidence in relation to the first charge. However, the court found that no fabrication of evidence had been established. In terms of damages, the court considered the principles in the assessment of damages, including exemplary damages, in an action for malicious prosecution.

Ultimately, the court determined that the State of New South Wales was not liable for the malicious prosecution of Mr Landini. The court found that the Crown's vicarious liability at common law and under the Vicarious Liability Act did not apply in this case. The court also held that the suppression of fabricated evidence did not constitute the maintenance or continuation of the criminal proceedings. Finally, the court awarded Mr Landini nominal damages for the malicious prosecution, but declined to award any exemplary damages.