King's / Queen's Bench Division of the High Court

[2025] EWHC 2684 (KB)

Fecha: 17-Oct-2025

PARTICULARS OF MISFEASANCE IN PUBLIC OFFICE

(1)

The Claimants repeat and rely upon the preceding paragraphs relating to malicious prosecution insofar as they can properly apply to the tort of misfeasance in public office.

(2)

The Defendant’s officers did not begin the investigation into the Claimants involvement with an open mind and/or with an impartial approach, and were not prepared to conduct an even-handed and fair investigation. Instead those officers set out to prove that there had been wrongdoing on the part of the Claimants. This was an improper and malicious motive.

(3)

The Defendant's police officers maliciously abused their powers as public officers in their treatment of the Claimants in the knowledge that such abuse of power would probably cause damage to the Claimants. The Claimants will invite the court to infer that the Defendant’s officers knew that, by reason of their conduct, the Defendant’s officers knew that the Claimants would suffer foreseeable loss and damage.

(4)

The Defendant’s officers knew that the prolonged investigation and prosecution of the Claimants would lead to the demise of, their business and/or the companies.

(5)

The Defendant’s officers suppressed fundamental evidence which they knew would undermine any prosecution case and would support the Claimants' accounts of events and, as result, render it more likely that the Claimants would be convicted of the said charges.

40.

The Defendant’s case was that it was the CPS (via the charging decision of Mr Christopher Tarrant) that set the law in motion against the Claimants. The CPS was therefore the prosecutor. The case (irrespective of its merits) was formulated by the CPS (and in due course prosecuting counsel) who were provided with the entirety of the material, both inculpatory and exculpatory, obtained during an extensive police investigation and summarised in a detailed case summary.

41.

In order to succeed in malicious prosecution, the Claimants needed to prove one or more specific acts/omissions on the part of one or more individual police officers which was/were sufficient:

To affix at least one officer with the status in law of “prosecutor” (i.e. because their acts/omissions deprived Mr Tarrant of the ability to exercise independent judgment as to whether the charge was warranted);

ii)

To deprive any such prosecutor of an honest or reasonable belief in the propriety of the charge;

iii)

To establish that any such prosecutor was pursuing the prosecution for some purpose other than to secure the ends of justice.

42.

It was the Defendant’s case that the Claimants had failed to advance a credible case that the police acted in bad faith in the conduct of the investigation/prosecution, and/or that they effectively subverted the independent decision-making role of the CPS. Specifically, the Claimants’ evidence failed to establish any specific piece of evidence/information that was knowingly concealed/suppressed by the police (still less did they establish that any such evidence/information would have materially affected the CPS’ decision to prosecute). Further,

There were no material/significant discrepancies between the evidence contained in the witnesses’ section 9 criminal statements (which they voluntarily signed) and what they told the police (on or off tape) during their interviews.

The Claimants had “wholly failed to particularise their averment that relevant material was excluded from the 204 page case summary submitted to the CPS prior to charge”.

Mr Tarrant was “fully sighted” on the relevant issues/evidence including credibility issues surrounding Mark Deveney.

43.

As for misfeasance in public office, it was the Defendant’s case that the Claimants’ inability to prove either (a) their underlying hypothesis of bad faith on the part of the investigating police officers and/or (b) that any act/omission in bad faith on the part of any police officer was instrumental in the bringing of a prosecution by the CPS that would not otherwise have been brought, was also fatal to the misfeasance claim (because the elements of bad faith and/or causation were not established).