[2025] EWHC 2684 (KB)

A summary of the Claimants’ case stated as follows:

“The Claimants aver that by reason of the improper manner in which the investigation was conducted, and the manner in which evidence was presented to the CPS, the Defendant’s officers caused them to be maliciously prosecuted and/or the Defendant’s officers committed a misfeasance in public office. In particular, the Claimants say that the Defendant’s officers failed to take account of and give proper consideration to important evidence, suppressed evidence and changed and manipulated evidence. The Claimants’ case is that the Defendant’s officers acted with malice. The Defendant by his officers knew that there was no evidence, or no sufficient evidence that the Claimants had committed the offences with which they were charged but nevertheless proceeded to instigate a prosecution against them.”

Further it was set out in the Claimants’ skeleton that;

“The Claimants contend that the Defendant’s officers were prosecutors, and they were instrumental in the bringing of the prosecution and/or were the persons responsible and/or a person responsible for the prosecution.

The Claimants’ rely in their claims in malicious prosecution on the mindset and general approach of the officers, as well as on a series of specific acts and omissions, which they say demonstrate an absence of reasonable and probable cause and malice.

It is the Claimants’ case that, on the totality of the evidence, the prosecution was brought without reasonable and probable cause, in 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 see paragraph 208,..

…..

Misfeasance in public office

For the purposes of misfeasance in public office, the Claimants further 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.”

During his oral opening Mr Metzer KC confirmed that it was the Claimants’ case that the officers who were instrumental in the progression of the police investigation, produced a deliberately misleading and “slanted” case summary to the CPS, and did not believe that the Claimants were guilty of fraud. They had subjective belief in the Claimants’ innocence but wanted to achieve a conviction. The CPS were given an intentionally distorted and inadequate picture and had they received a balanced and fair picture “it would have gone the other way” i.e. there would not have been a prosecution.

It is helpful at this stage to set out the pleaded particulars of malicious prosecution and misfeasance in public office which remained as allegations at the conclusion of the trial.