Malicious Prosecution: Beckett v State of New South Wales [2015] NSWSC 1017

Tuesday 25 August 2015 @ 11.20 a.m. | Legal Research | Torts, Damages & Civil Liability

A woman from New South Wales has been awarded $2.3 million in damages for malicious prosecution, after a lengthy legal battle that went all the way to the High Court.  Roseanne Beckett was jailed in 1991 after being convicted on nine counts relating to the solicitation of two people to murder her husband, Mr Catt.  After a series of appeals, Ms Beckett was released on bail in 2001, pending a review of her conviction by the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal.  The Court acquitted her on count 9, dismissed the appeal in relation to counts 3 and 4 and ordered a retrial on the remaining counts (1, 2, 5, 6, 7).

In 2005, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) decided not to proceed on the retrial.  Ms Beckett launched her malicious prosecution claim in 2008 against counts 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 and 9.

Elements of Malicious Prosecution

At [123] of his judgment, Harrison J noted:

For a plaintiff to succeed in an action for damages for malicious prosecution the plaintiff must establish:

  • that proceedings of the kind to which the tort applies (generally, as in this case, criminal proceedings) were initiated against a plaintiff by a defendant;
  • that the proceedings terminated in favour of that plaintiff;
  • that the defendant, in initiating or maintaining the proceedings acted maliciously; and
  • that the defendant acted without reasonable and probable cause.

The High Court Case

Beckett v New South Wales [2013] HCA 17; 248 CLR 432 dealt with the consequences of the DPP’s decision not to proceed.  A previous High Court decision, Davies v Gell (1924) 35 CLR 275, suggested that a plaintiff whose proceedings where terminated by a form of nolle prosequi would have to prove their innocence before they could succeed in an action for malicious prosecution.  The High Court overturned this judgment, finding that Ms Beckett was not required to prove her innocence for the case to proceed.

The NSWCCA Decision

Harrison J’s lengthy decision reviewed all the evidence before the prosecutor in relation to each count and concluded that Ms Beckett had succeeding in proving that two of the counts, 2 and 6, fit the requirements of malicious prosecution.  At [576], he said:

“First, I am satisfied that that Detective Thomas, at the time of instituting or maintaining the perjury charge, either did not believe in Ms Beckett’s guilt or did not have reasonable grounds for so believing. Secondly, I am also satisfied that at the time of instituting or maintaining the solicit James Morris charge, Detective Thomas either did not believe in Ms Beckett’s guilt or if he did he did not have reasonable grounds for so believing.”

Highlighting the High Court’s warnings against conflating reasonable and probable cause and malice, he examined the history and previous interactions of Ms Beckett and Detective Thomas.  He noted that the two of them had a lengthy and difficult history stemming from an incident where he accused her of setting fire to her delicatessen.  He said at [648-9]:

“A significant amount of the material referred to in submissions on malice went to motive. Proof of a malicious motive is not automatically proof of malice. I am however satisfied that the evidence establishes that Detective Thomas harboured an intense dislike for Ms Beckett and that the fallout from the delicatessen fire was the cause of it….

I am satisfied that Detective Thomas did not believe, and could not reasonably have believed, that Ms Beckett was guilty of the charges that became Count 2 and Count 6. As I have already noted, Detective Thomas was an investigator of some considerable experience. He was clearly no fool.”

Harrison J noted in his assessment of damages that Ms Beckett’s sentence for count 2 was 3 years imprisonment and for count 6, 3 years and 6 months of imprisonment.  He awarded general, aggravated and exemplary damages in addition to damages of loss of reputation and economic loss during the time of her imprisonment.  The assessment of damages was made more complex because of the length of Ms Beckett’s imprisonment and the lack of any authoritative guideline on how damages should be calculated.

TimeBase is an independent, privately owned Australian legal publisher specialising in the online delivery of accurate, comprehensive and innovative legislation research tools including LawOne and unique Point-in-Time Products.

Sources:

Related Articles: