Court dismisses appeal in malicious prosecution case

Background of the Case

The Court of Appeal recently delivered its judgment in the case of Richard Hughes against His Majesty's Revenue and Customs (HMRC) and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). The appellant, Richard Hughes, had originally brought proceedings against these entities for malicious prosecution and misfeasance in public office. These claims arose from charges of conspiracy to cheat and cheating the Revenue, which were dismissed in 2017.

Initial Proceedings

Richard Hughes was charged in December 2015, and his case was sent for trial at the Crown Court in Birmingham. However, in April 2017, the charges were dismissed at a hearing before HH Judge Drew QC, as they did not disclose an offence known to law. Following this, Hughes initiated proceedings against HMRC and the CPS in December 2021, claiming that his prosecution was malicious and that both entities had committed misfeasance in public office.

High Court Decision

In October 2023, HMRC and the CPS applied for orders to strike out the claims. The applications were heard by Mr Justice Jay in June 2024. The judge entered summary judgment in favour of HMRC and the CPS, concluding that Hughes had no real prospect of succeeding in his claims. It was also determined that the assignment of rights and claims from two companies to Hughes was void and unenforceable as being contrary to public policy.

Appeal to the Court of Appeal

Hughes applied for permission to appeal on nine grounds. The Court of Appeal, comprising Lord Justice William Davis and Lord Justice Jeremy Baker, considered the appeal. Hughes was represented by Ian Croxford KC and Sam Jacobs, while HMRC and the CPS were represented by their respective legal teams.

Arguments and Judgment

The appeal focused on several key issues, including whether the CPS had reasonable and probable cause to prosecute Hughes and whether there was malice involved in the prosecution. The Court of Appeal found that the test for reasonable and probable cause was correctly applied by the High Court, and that the CPS had an honest belief in the sufficiency of evidence to prosecute Hughes. The court also rejected the argument that the prosecution was rushed due to external pressures.

Misfeasance in Public Office

Regarding the claim of misfeasance in public office, the Court of Appeal agreed with the High Court's finding that Hughes had no real prospect of establishing bad faith or malice. The court noted that negligence or incompetence did not amount to malice, and that the involvement of independent counsel in the charging decision was a significant factor against the claim of bad faith.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal refused permission to appeal, upholding the High Court's decision. The judgment highlighted the importance of reasonable and probable cause in malicious prosecution claims and reaffirmed the principles governing misfeasance in public office.

Learn More

For more information on public office misfeasance, see BeCivil's guide to English Data Protection Law.