REASONABLE AND PROBABLE CAUSE IN THE LAW OF MALICIOUS PROSECUTION: A REVIEW OF SOUTH AFRICAN AND COMMONWEALTH DECISIONS

The requirement that the plaintiff in an action for malicious prosecution must prove a lack of reasonable and probable cause to initiate, instigate or continue the prosecution on the part of the instigator or prosecutor is one of the four elements of that cause of action. It is a vital link between...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Chuks Okpaluba
Format: Article
Language:Afrikaans
Published: North-West University 2013-04-01
Series:Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal
Subjects:
Online Access:http://www.nwu.ac.za/webfm_send/63109
_version_ 1830478374849478656
author Chuks Okpaluba
author_facet Chuks Okpaluba
author_sort Chuks Okpaluba
collection DOAJ
description The requirement that the plaintiff in an action for malicious prosecution must prove a lack of reasonable and probable cause to initiate, instigate or continue the prosecution on the part of the instigator or prosecutor is one of the four elements of that cause of action. It is a vital link between the lawfulness of the prosecution and the state of mind of the defendant. Again, whether a prosecution is wrongful or lawful depends on whether there was a reasonable and probable cause coupled with the animus iniuriandi of the defendant in instigating, initiating or continuing it. It is not whether the prosecutor possessed evidence to secure a conviction since that is for the trial court to decide after the conclusion of evidence; but, the honest belief by the prosecutor that, having carefully collected and objectively assessed the available information, the plaintiff was probably guilty of the crime. In coming to that decision the prosecutor must have grappled with both the subjective and objective elements in the exercise of that discretion. The Australian High Court judgment in A v New South Wales 2007 230 CLR 500 (HCA) has brought clarity to this aspect of the problem. However, as this paper contends, the ten-point guidelines enunciated by that court in that case and designed to provide the courts with a seemingly less complicated formula for determining if the prosecutor lacked reasonable and probable cause do not appear to have provided the panacea to the problem. Meanwhile, the distinct nature of the requirement of reasonable and probable cause is made clearer when it is compared with reasonable ground to arrest in the case of wrongful arrest and the tort of abuse of process. Also problematic and equally challenging is identifying where a reasonable and probable cause inquiry stops and malice begins. This is brought out in the attempt by the Supreme Court of Canada to unravel the tension between the proof of the existence of malice and reasonable and probable cause in the law of malicious prosecution in Miazga v Kvello Estate 2009 3 SCR 339 (SCC). The extent to which the guidelines laid down in these recent cases would have resolved the confusion in this field of the law is yet to be realised.
first_indexed 2024-12-21T16:27:07Z
format Article
id doaj.art-2fbb1d0a541f46aebb85e01ff1a58ce2
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 1727-3781
language Afrikaans
last_indexed 2024-12-21T16:27:07Z
publishDate 2013-04-01
publisher North-West University
record_format Article
series Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal
spelling doaj.art-2fbb1d0a541f46aebb85e01ff1a58ce22022-12-21T18:57:25ZafrNorth-West UniversityPotchefstroom Electronic Law Journal1727-37812013-04-01161240279http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/pelj.v16i1.8REASONABLE AND PROBABLE CAUSE IN THE LAW OF MALICIOUS PROSECUTION: A REVIEW OF SOUTH AFRICAN AND COMMONWEALTH DECISIONSChuks OkpalubaThe requirement that the plaintiff in an action for malicious prosecution must prove a lack of reasonable and probable cause to initiate, instigate or continue the prosecution on the part of the instigator or prosecutor is one of the four elements of that cause of action. It is a vital link between the lawfulness of the prosecution and the state of mind of the defendant. Again, whether a prosecution is wrongful or lawful depends on whether there was a reasonable and probable cause coupled with the animus iniuriandi of the defendant in instigating, initiating or continuing it. It is not whether the prosecutor possessed evidence to secure a conviction since that is for the trial court to decide after the conclusion of evidence; but, the honest belief by the prosecutor that, having carefully collected and objectively assessed the available information, the plaintiff was probably guilty of the crime. In coming to that decision the prosecutor must have grappled with both the subjective and objective elements in the exercise of that discretion. The Australian High Court judgment in A v New South Wales 2007 230 CLR 500 (HCA) has brought clarity to this aspect of the problem. However, as this paper contends, the ten-point guidelines enunciated by that court in that case and designed to provide the courts with a seemingly less complicated formula for determining if the prosecutor lacked reasonable and probable cause do not appear to have provided the panacea to the problem. Meanwhile, the distinct nature of the requirement of reasonable and probable cause is made clearer when it is compared with reasonable ground to arrest in the case of wrongful arrest and the tort of abuse of process. Also problematic and equally challenging is identifying where a reasonable and probable cause inquiry stops and malice begins. This is brought out in the attempt by the Supreme Court of Canada to unravel the tension between the proof of the existence of malice and reasonable and probable cause in the law of malicious prosecution in Miazga v Kvello Estate 2009 3 SCR 339 (SCC). The extent to which the guidelines laid down in these recent cases would have resolved the confusion in this field of the law is yet to be realised.http://www.nwu.ac.za/webfm_send/63109Malicious prosecutioninstigation or continuation of prosecutionabsence of reasonable and probable causewhether distinguishable from reasonable ground to suspectarrest without warrantwhether amounts to abuse of processproof of animus iniuriandiwhether dependent upon proof of reasonable and probable causerelevance of objective sufficiency of information available to prosecutor.
spellingShingle Chuks Okpaluba
REASONABLE AND PROBABLE CAUSE IN THE LAW OF MALICIOUS PROSECUTION: A REVIEW OF SOUTH AFRICAN AND COMMONWEALTH DECISIONS
Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal
Malicious prosecution
instigation or continuation of prosecution
absence of reasonable and probable cause
whether distinguishable from reasonable ground to suspect
arrest without warrant
whether amounts to abuse of process
proof of animus iniuriandi
whether dependent upon proof of reasonable and probable cause
relevance of objective sufficiency of information available to prosecutor.
title REASONABLE AND PROBABLE CAUSE IN THE LAW OF MALICIOUS PROSECUTION: A REVIEW OF SOUTH AFRICAN AND COMMONWEALTH DECISIONS
title_full REASONABLE AND PROBABLE CAUSE IN THE LAW OF MALICIOUS PROSECUTION: A REVIEW OF SOUTH AFRICAN AND COMMONWEALTH DECISIONS
title_fullStr REASONABLE AND PROBABLE CAUSE IN THE LAW OF MALICIOUS PROSECUTION: A REVIEW OF SOUTH AFRICAN AND COMMONWEALTH DECISIONS
title_full_unstemmed REASONABLE AND PROBABLE CAUSE IN THE LAW OF MALICIOUS PROSECUTION: A REVIEW OF SOUTH AFRICAN AND COMMONWEALTH DECISIONS
title_short REASONABLE AND PROBABLE CAUSE IN THE LAW OF MALICIOUS PROSECUTION: A REVIEW OF SOUTH AFRICAN AND COMMONWEALTH DECISIONS
title_sort reasonable and probable cause in the law of malicious prosecution a review of south african and commonwealth decisions
topic Malicious prosecution
instigation or continuation of prosecution
absence of reasonable and probable cause
whether distinguishable from reasonable ground to suspect
arrest without warrant
whether amounts to abuse of process
proof of animus iniuriandi
whether dependent upon proof of reasonable and probable cause
relevance of objective sufficiency of information available to prosecutor.
url http://www.nwu.ac.za/webfm_send/63109
work_keys_str_mv AT chuksokpaluba reasonableandprobablecauseinthelawofmaliciousprosecutionareviewofsouthafricanandcommonwealthdecisions