JUDGE:	NETTLE J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	3, 4, 5, 7 March, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 23, 24, 28, 29, 30 April, 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 May 2003
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	25 July 2003
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Skrijel v Mengler
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2003] VSC 270

---

Malicious prosecution - Alleged fabrication of evidence by National Crime Authority Chief Investigator and a Victoria Police sergeant fingerprints expert – Whether actively instrumental in setting criminal proceedings in motion – Whether acting with malice – Whether acting with reasonable and probable cause – Favourable termination – Whether nolle prosequi a favourable termination of criminal proceedings - Vicarious liability - Whether Commonwealth and State Governments liable for actions or omissions of police officers in their service.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr D.E. Berthelson (Appeared as Lay Advocate)	J N Zigouras & Co.
For the Firstnamed Plaintiff	Mr M.A. Tovey QC with Mr P. J. Marzella	Hardham Dalton & Sunberg
For the Secondnamed Defendant	Mr B.E. Walters SC with Mr K.D. Mueller	Australian Government Solicitor
For the Thirdnamed Defendant	Mr J.G. Santamaria QC with Mr M.L. Gindberg	Victorian Government Solicitor
For the Fourthnamed Defendant	Mr R.I. Gipp	Ebsworth & Ebsworth

Table of Contents

THE PLAINTIFF’S OPENING......................................................................................................................................................... 2

THE PLEADINGS............................................................................................................................................................................... 20

THE EVIDENCE FOR THE PLAINTIFF................................................................................................................................... 24

(i)     The Plaintiff....................................................................................................................................................................... 24
(ii)     David Berthelsen............................................................................................................................................................... 35
(ii)     Keith Murdoch................................................................................................................................................................... 40
(iii)    William Frederick Toomer.............................................................................................................................................. 44
(iv)     Wally Edwards.................................................................................................................................................................. 45
(v)    Dr Khan.............................................................................................................................................................................. 45
(v)    Alan Franklyn Pringle..................................................................................................................................................... 46

THE WITNESSES FOR THE FIRST DEFENDANT............................................................................................................... 48

(i)     John Carl Mengler............................................................................................................................................................ 48
(ii)     Henry Gregory Huggins.................................................................................................................................................. 55
(iii)    Ronald William Iddles...................................................................................................................................................... 58
(iv)     Mark Richard Carmady................................................................................................................................................... 63
(v)    Sinclair Imrie Miller......................................................................................................................................................... 66

WITNESSES FOR THE SECOND DEFENDANT.................................................................................................................... 66

WITNESSES FOR THE THIRD DEFENDANT........................................................................................................................ 66

(i)     Sergeant Cook................................................................................................................................................................... 66
(ii)     Trevor Roddick.................................................................................................................................................................. 72
(iii)    Bryan James Norton......................................................................................................................................................... 74
(iv)     Melissa Ann Tan................................................................................................................................................................ 76
(v)    Gregory Hugh Salter........................................................................................................................................................ 77

WITNESSES FOR THE FOURTH DEFENDANT.................................................................................................................... 77

FINDINGS OF FACT......................................................................................................................................................................... 77

THE LAW.............................................................................................................................................................................................. 91

(i)     Actively instrumental........................................................................................................................................................ 92
(ii)     Malice................................................................................................................................................................................. 95
(iii)    Reasonable and probable cause..................................................................................................................................... 97
(iv)     Favourable termination................................................................................................................................................. 105

LIMITATION OF ACTIONS........................................................................................................................................................ 109

VICARIOUS LIABILITY............................................................................................................................................................... 110

CONSPIRACY................................................................................................................................................................................... 111

CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................................................................... 115

HIS HONOUR:

Mehmed Skrijel came to this country from Yugoslavia in 1961. He was 20 years of age. He arrived without any money and he could not speak any English. But in time he found work as a house painter, he learned to speak English, he established his own house painting business at Digby in rural Victoria and he married and he had children. Thus by the early 1970’s he had achieved a measure of success. Things changed for him for the worse after he left his house painting business and in November 1975 moved with his family to Southend in South Australia…

Grounds of appeal

[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 Skrijel v Mengler

Details

AGLC: Skrijel v Mengler [2003] VSC 270
Case: [2003] VSC 270
Decision Date: 25 July 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Skrijel v Mengler was a case before the Federal Court of Australia where the plaintiff, Skrijel, sought damages against the defendants, Mengler and others, for malicious prosecution. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants, including a Chief Investigator of the National Crime Authority and a Victoria Police sergeant who was a fingerprints expert, fabricated evidence which led to his criminal prosecution and subsequent imprisonment. The case involved complex questions of whether the defendants were actively instrumental in setting the criminal proceedings in motion, whether they acted with malice and without reasonable and probable cause, and whether the proceedings concluded with a favourable termination, such as a nolle prosequi, which can constitute a favourable termination of criminal proceedings. The court also had to consider the issue of vicarious liability, specifically whether the Commonwealth and State Governments could be held liable for the actions or omissions of police officers in their service.

The court had to determine whether the evidence supported the plaintiff's claim that the defendants were actively involved in initiating the criminal proceedings against him without reasonable and probable cause. It was crucial to establish if the alleged fabrication of evidence by the defendants was indeed a catalyst for the prosecution. The court also had to assess the nature of the termination of the proceedings to determine if it could be considered favourable to the plaintiff, and whether a nolle prosequi constituted such a termination. Finally, the court examined the legal principles governing vicarious liability to ascertain whether the Commonwealth and State Governments could be held accountable for the actions of their police officers.

In its decision, the court found that there was insufficient evidence to support the plaintiff's claim that the defendants fabricated evidence or acted with malice. The court concluded that the criminal proceedings were not initiated without reasonable and probable cause and that the nolle prosequi did not amount to a favourable termination of the proceedings. The court further determined that the Commonwealth and State Governments could not be held vicariously liable for the actions of the police officers as they were not acting within the scope of their employment when the alleged wrongful acts occurred. The plaintiff's claims were dismissed, and the court found in favour of the defendants.

The court ordered that the plaintiff take nothing by his action and that the defendants be awarded costs. This decision underscores the high threshold required to prove malicious prosecution, particularly in cases involving allegations against law enforcement officers. It also highlights the importance of reasonable and probable cause in initiating criminal proceedings and the limited circumstances under which vicarious liability may be imposed on governments for the actions of their police officers.

Orders