Appellant vs ASP Phillip

This case involved a claim of malicious prosecution by the Appellant against ASP Phillip, centered on allegations of illegal tree felling and subsequent prosecution without reasonable and probable cause.

TLDR:

• The Appellant was charged with illegal tree felling and removing timber without a permit.
• The trial judge found no reasonable and probable cause for the charges.
• The Court of Appeal overturned the trial judge's decision, finding sufficient circumstantial evidence for the charges.
• The Court of Appeal also found no malice in the prosecution.
• The Board dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Court of Appeal's assessment.

The Appellant, a senior police officer, was charged with illegal tree felling and removing timber without a permit. The prosecution was initiated by ASP Phillip based on circumstantial evidence, including witness statements and police records. The Appellant claimed that the prosecution was malicious and lacked reasonable and probable cause.

At trial, the judge found that there was insufficient evidence to support the charges, highlighting gaps and deficiencies in the investigation. The judge concluded that the prosecution was initiated without reasonable and probable cause and inferred malice on the part of ASP Phillip.

The Court of Appeal, however, reversed the trial judge's decision. It found that the judge had failed to appreciate the collective significance of the circumstantial evidence and had improperly focused on the evidence presented at the Magistrates' Court. The Court of Appeal concluded that the evidence, when viewed cumulatively, provided reasonable and probable grounds for the charges.

The Court of Appeal also addressed the issue of malice, finding no evidence to suggest that the prosecution was driven by an improper purpose. The court emphasized that the prosecution was a proper invocation of the criminal law based on the available evidence.

On appeal to the Board, the Appellant argued that the Court of Appeal had improperly interfered with the trial judge's findings. The Board, however, agreed with the Court of Appeal's assessment. It found that the trial judge had made significant errors in evaluating the evidence and had not properly considered the information available to ASP Phillip at the time the charges were brought.

The Board concluded that there was sufficient evidence to provide reasonable and probable grounds for the charges against the Appellant. It also agreed with the Court of Appeal's finding that there was no malice in the prosecution. Consequently, the Board dismissed the appeal.