[2025] EWHC 2684 (KB)

I have set out my factual findings during my review of the evidence. It is necessary to make it clear that it is simply not necessary or proportionate to make a finding of fact in relation to every single factual dispute raised within statements and oral evidence. This hearing was not a public inquiry, rather it was a civil case based on causes of action as defined in the pleadings. It is helpful to rehearse the Claimants’ case on the two causes of action.

The Claimants rely in their claims in malicious prosecution on the mindset and general approach of the officers as well as a series of specific acts and omissions, which they say demonstrate both an absence of reasonable and probable cause and malice. It is the Claimants’ case that, the Defendant’s officers did not have an honest belief in their guilt, and that they acted with malice, in that they had an improper motive or purpose towards them, which was to ensure prosecution and conviction regardless of such a lack of honest belief.

The Claimants repeat and rely upon their Particulars of Malicious Prosecution insofar as they can properly apply, to establish the tort of misfeasance in public office, malice being synonymous with bad faith. The Claimants contend that the Defendant’s officers did not approach the investigation with an open mind and held an improper and malicious motive and that they maliciously abused their powers as public officers in the knowledge that such abuse of power would probably cause them damage. Further, the Claimants contend that the Defendant’s officers knew that the prosecution of them would lead to the demise of their business and/or the companies. The Claimants further aver that the Defendant’s officers suppressed fundamental evidence which they knew would undermine any prosecution case, and which would support the Claimants case, thus rendering it more likely that the Claimants would be convicted of the charges.

I shall now address the central issues arising from these allegations.

During my review I shall refer back to the factual findings which I have already made during my review of the evidence.