This was an appeal from the decision of Irving v Pfingst [2020] QSC 280. The majority of the Court of Appeal (Fraser and McMurdo JA) allowed the appeal. Fraser and McMurdo JA held that the police officer in question did not honestly believe that there was a proper basis to lay the accessory to an armed robbery charge and that she acted maliciously in doing so. Mullins JA dissented and found that it was open for the trial judge to conclude that based on the police officer’s evidence, she had an honest but mistaken belief in the merits of the accessory armed robber charge and that it was not permissible to reverse the the trial judge’s findings. Mullins JA also found that a finding of malice on the part of the police officer was not open. The balance of Mr Irving’s appeal was dismissed. The matter was remitted to the trial judge for determination of damages.
In January 2022, the respondents applied for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia. On 17 June 2022, special leave was refused at an oral hearing before Keane and Edelman JJ. Mr Irving also applied for special leave to appeal but leave was also refused.
Scott McLeod QC and Matthew Wilkinson, instructed by Crown Solicitor, acted for the respondents in the Court of Appeal, and in both special leave applications to the High Court of Australia.
The judgment is published here.
