HEARD: 30 MAY, 1 - 3, 7 - 10, 13 - 17 JUNE, 8 - 9, 12 - 16, 19 ‑ 21 DECEMBER 2005 & 15 - 18 AUGUST 2006
DELIVERED : 30 APRIL 2007
FILE NO/S: CIV 2231 of 1999
BETWEEN: JEFFREY HOWARD NOYE
Plaintiff
AND
STEPHEN JOHN ROBBINS Defendant
FILE NO/S :CIV 2490 of 2000
BETWEEN :JEFFREY HOWARD NOYE
Plaintiff
AND
LYNETTE BERYL CRIMMINS Defendant
Catchwords:
Malicious prosecution - Misfeasance in public office - Abuse of process - Injurious falsehood - Criminal prosecution on indictment - Police disciplinary charges for alleged corrupt conduct - Nolle prosequi filed after indictment - Procedures applying when nolle prosequi presented - Functions of counsel
Police disciplinary charges withdrawn - Senior police officer retired from service on health grounds - Police career destroyed - Whether proceedings terminated in plaintiff's favour - Malice - Whether absence of reasonable cause for initiating charges - Whether action for malicious prosecution lies in respect of withdrawal of professional disciplinary charges - Strength of case - Major witness for prosecution of questionable credibility - Lack of apparent motive - Circumstantial case - Significance of prosecutor seeking advice from Director of Public Prosecutions - Whether advice from Director of Public Prosecutions based on all material information - Animosity towards plaintiff by another investigating officer - Animosity of witness towards plaintiff - Exterior agency financing police investigations - False information provided to police by principal witness - Information provided maliciously and to secure favourable treatment for offender - - False allegations a material cause in the plaintiff being investigated and charged - Damages
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Noye v Robbins
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Noye v Robbins [2007] WASC 98
Case
[2007] WASC 98
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Noye v Robbins, the plaintiff sought damages for malicious prosecution, misfeasance in public office, abuse of process, and injurious falsehood. The proceedings arose from a series of police investigations and subsequent charges against the plaintiff, who was ultimately cleared of the allegations. The plaintiff's career was significantly impacted by the proceedings, leading to his retirement on health grounds. The court was required to determine whether the plaintiff could bring an action for malicious prosecution in relation to the withdrawal of police disciplinary charges, the absence of reasonable cause for initiating the charges, and the existence of malice.
The court examined the circumstances surrounding the initiation and withdrawal of the charges against the plaintiff. It considered factors such as the questionable credibility of a key prosecution witness, the lack of apparent motive, and the circumstantial nature of the case. The court also evaluated the significance of the prosecutor seeking advice from the Director of Public Prosecutions and whether this advice was based on all material information. Additionally, the court assessed the impact of animosity towards the plaintiff by other investigating officers and the provision of false information by a principal witness. The court found that the plaintiff had been defamed through injurious falsehood and awarded damages of $272,676.
The court concluded that the plaintiff's action for malicious prosecution was not valid in respect of the withdrawal of police disciplinary charges, as the charges had been withdrawn before the proceedings were terminated in his favour. However, the court found that the plaintiff had suffered defamatory statements that were injurious to his reputation, leading to the award of damages for injurious falsehood. The court dismissed the claims for malicious prosecution, misfeasance in public office, and abuse of process.
Orders
Orders of the court
Results: CIV 2231 of 1999 - dismissed
CIV 2490 of 2000 - damages of $272,676 awarded for injurious falsehood