Rudall v The Crown Prosecution Service & Anor

A claim arising from a search warrant is subject to the ordinary limitation rules from the date the cause of action accrues. A continuing investigation does not postpone limitation. Deliberate concealment requires evidence that relevant facts were deliberately concealed; awareness that documents exist, coupled with a failure to obtain them, is insufficient.

A malicious prosecution claim may proceed where the evidence arguably shows that the prosecution lacked reasonable and probable cause and was pursued in bad faith. At the summary stage, the court must not conduct a mini-trial. A conspiracy to injure by unlawful means may be pleaded where the alleged unlawful conduct is malicious prosecution, but a lawful-means conspiracy requires predominant intention to injure.

The claimant, a solicitor, was investigated and prosecuted by the defendants between 2001 and 2013. He was acquitted of charges arising from the Wolfram II investigation in 2005. Charges arising from the Wolfram I investigation were dismissed in 2013 before arraignment because the prosecution evidence was insufficient.

He brought claims including malicious procurement of a search warrant, malicious prosecution, misfeasance in public office, breach of Human Rights Act 1998 section 6, and conspiracy. The defendants applied to strike out the claims or obtain summary judgment, principally on limitation and merits grounds. The central issues were whether the claims were statute-barred, whether the 2010 prosecution had a real prospect of supporting malicious prosecution, and whether the claimant should be permitted to amend his pleading to include conspiracy.

1. Search warrant claims. The claims concerning the 2002 search warrant accrued when the warrant was issued and executed. The alleged wrongdoing was not a continuing cause of action. Section 32 of the Limitation Act 1980 did not postpone limitation: the claimant knew where the warrant information was held and how it could be obtained, but did not take steps to obtain it. The claim concerning seizure of the Richards v Clarke file was also plainly out of time. Summary judgment or strike-out was therefore ordered. The claims were additionally defective because they did not plead lack of reasonable or probable cause or malice, and the execution claim was barred by section 6 of the Constables’ Protection Act 1750.
2. 2004–2005 prosecution. The malicious prosecution claim was out of time. In any event, there was ample evidence capable of giving rise to reasonable and probable cause, and the prosecution had been allowed to proceed to a jury.
3. 2010 prosecution. The claim was not suitable for summary disposal. The dismissal of the charges resulted from the absence of admissible evidence supporting the basic allegation that Life Club was fraudulent. The prosecution had relied on materially incomplete and uncertain evidence, despite advice identifying its insufficiency and the need for a fresh evidential assessment. Those matters arguably supported lack of reasonable and probable cause. The prolonged failure to obtain the central evidence, together with the circumstances and apparent motives of those pursuing the case, also supported an arguable inference of bad faith or malice. The court must not conduct a mini-trial on documents.
4. Conspiracy and remaining claims. The claimant could amend to plead conspiracy to injure by unlawful means, namely malicious prosecution, because the alleged conduct was arguably a combination involving both defendants. It was unnecessary to plead the precise time and manner of the conspiracy; overt acts from which combination could be inferred were sufficient. A lawful-means conspiracy was not arguable because, absent bad faith and malice, there was no apparent basis for proving predominant intention to injure. The misfeasance and human-rights claims could proceed only in relation to conduct first giving rise to damage after 25 April 2008.

The defendants obtained summary judgment or strike-out concerning the search warrant and Wolfram II prosecution. The Wolfram I malicious prosecution claim could proceed to trial, with permission to amend to add unlawful-means conspiracy.