Trevor Williamson v The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago

Malicious prosecution requires proof that the prosecutor lacked reasonable and probable cause and acted with malice. Malice means an improper purpose, other than the proper invocation of the criminal law, that was the sole or dominant motive. It may be inferred from lack of reasonable and probable cause, but the inference is fact-sensitive and requires more than reprehensible procedural conduct. A valid arrest under the Criminal Law Act does not depend on a charge being formulated at arrest, and a later defect in the charge does not retrospectively invalidate it. In a false-imprisonment claim following a valid arrest, the detainee must identify the specific period and raise the legality issue in time for evidence to be investigated.

The appellant, a taxi driver, was arrested after being identified as having helped remove property from a burgled house. He was prosecuted for housebreaking and larceny, but the charge was dismissed after repeated failures by the prosecuting police officer to attend court.

The High Court dismissed claims for wrongful arrest, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution. The Court of Appeal considered that the appellant should have been charged as a secondary participant rather than as a principal and found no reasonable and probable cause for the charge, but it found no malice and dismissed the appeal. The Board considered whether malice could be inferred and whether detention before the first court appearance was actionable false imprisonment.

Lord Kerr delivered the single judgment of the Board. The appeal was dismissed on both malicious-prosecution and false-imprisonment grounds.

1. Malicious prosecution. The claimant had to prove both absence of reasonable and probable cause and malice. Malice required an improper or wrongful motive, other than the proper invocation of the criminal law, which was the sole or dominant purpose of the prosecution. The Board referred to A v NSW [2007] HCA 10 and Crawford Adjusters Ltd (Cayman) v Sagicor General Insurance (Cayman) Ltd [2013] UKPC 17.
2. The Board did not need to determine whether the Court of Appeal was correct that the prosecutor lacked reasonable and probable cause for the charge actually laid. Although malice could be inferred from a complete absence of any basis for suspicion, the question was for the tribunal of fact and depended on the evidence. The circumstances here supported continuing suspicion, and the officer’s failures to attend court, although reprehensible, did not establish an intention to manipulate the legal system or pursue an improper motive. The officer’s unchallenged evidence of good faith further supported dismissal of the claim.
3. Arrest. Section 3(4) of the Criminal Law Act authorised arrest without warrant where a police officer had reasonable cause to suspect that an arrestable offence had been committed and reasonable cause to suspect the person arrested. There was no separate power to detain solely for questioning. The appellant’s detention and compulsory attendance at the police station nevertheless constituted a valid arrest because he knew the general reason for the restraint, applying Christie v Leachinsky [1947] AC 573.
4. A defect in the charge eventually laid could not retrospectively undermine the reasonableness of the suspicion at arrest. It was unnecessary for the constable to formulate any charge, still less the eventual charge, at the time of arrest.
5. False imprisonment. Although the detaining authority bears the burden of justifying detention, a person detained following a valid arrest must raise the legality of detention for a specific period before that burden arises. The appellant could not introduce that evidential issue for the first time before the Board. The constitutional guarantees of liberty, protection against arbitrary detention and prompt appearance before a judicial authority did not assist him because the evidence showed that inquiries continued and did not establish lack of promptitude.

1. Privy Council: The Board dismissed the appeal on 3 September 2014.
2. Court of Appeal of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago: On 27 July 2011, the court dismissed the appeal, holding that there was no reasonable and probable cause for the charge as laid but that malice could not be established.
3. High Court: Tiwary-Reddy J dismissed the claims for wrongful arrest, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution in a written judgment dated 3 July 2008, following trial in June and July 2007.