Sharp v Biggs

In this case, the High Court of Australia considered an appeal from the Supreme Court of Victoria concerning a claim for malicious prosecution. The appellant, Sharp, had prosecuted the respondent, Biggs, for perjury. Biggs was committed for trial but the Attorney-General declined to file a presentment. Biggs then sued Sharp for malicious prosecution, alleging he had been prosecuted without reasonable and probable cause and with malice.

The legal issues before the court were whether the prosecution of Biggs for perjury was initiated without reasonable and probable cause and whether Sharp was actuated by malice. The jury in the Supreme Court trial found that Biggs was innocent of the perjury charge, that Sharp honestly believed Biggs had committed perjury, but that this belief was not based on reasonable grounds, and that Sharp was actuated by malice. The trial judge entered judgment for Biggs based on the jury's finding that there was a want of reasonable and probable cause.

The High Court, by a majority, affirmed the decision of the Supreme Court. The majority held that the trial judge had correctly determined that there was a want of reasonable and probable cause. They reasoned that while the jury found Sharp honestly believed Biggs had committed perjury, this belief was not supported by reasonable grounds, particularly given the lapse of time since the original events and the potential for honest mistake. The court emphasised that the ultimate determination of whether facts constitute reasonable and probable cause rests with the court, while the jury's role is to establish the facts. The dissenting judges argued that the jury's findings were insufficient to establish a lack of reasonable and probable cause and that the direction to the jury on the fourth question was inadequate.