Latest news with #maliciousprosecution
ABC News
13-07-2025
- ABC News
NT Police Sergeant Patrick Carson sues government for malicious prosecution
A Northern Territory police officer is suing the territory government for malicious prosecution after being acquitted of raping a young woman five years ago. Sergeant Patrick Carson was found not guilty of two counts of rape by an NT Supreme Court jury in 2022, following the encounters with the woman two years earlier. It took jurors less than an hour to return an acquittal after his barrister, Mary Chalmers SC, told the court the woman was a "barefaced liar" who "had some kind of infatuation with him". In a civil action filed with the court earlier this year, Sergeant Carson claims prosecutors either "did not honestly believe in the case" or "did not have an objectively sufficient basis, or reasonable grounds, for such a belief". He says he was arrested by members of the elite Territory Response Group in September 2020 while visiting a McDonald's restaurant in Ludmilla with his children, before facing trial in June 2022. Before the trial began, Sergeant Carson says Director of Public Prosecutions Lloyd Babb SC — who is also named as a defendant — rejected an application by Ms Chalmers to withdraw the case. He claims that was despite the fact trial prosecutor Marty Aust SC "agreed with the plaintiff's counsel ... that there was no reasonable prospect of the prosecution succeeding". He claims "malice may be inferred from the lack of an honest belief by the prosecutors" in the case against him. However, the "particulars of absence of reasonable and probable cause" are almost entirely redacted from the documents released by the court. "The institution and maintenance of the criminal proceeding, in light of the material totally undermining the credibility of the complainant, was high-handed and in contumelious disregard of the proper purpose in bringing criminal proceedings," the statement of claim reads. "The conduct of the defendants requires the denunciation of this court via substantial lawful exemplary damages." Sergeant Carson is also seeking aggravated damages as well as compensation for legal costs, reputational loss and "distress, embarrassment and humiliation", which he says was exacerbated by his public arrest. "The criminal proceeding was instituted and maintained by the prosecutors for the dominant purpose of simply getting a result, as opposed to bringing a person guilty of a crime to justice," the document reads. "[It] was instituted and maintained by the prosecutors because the plaintiff was a serving police officer and the prosecuting authorities did not want to be seen as protecting one of their own by not prosecuting the allegations." In its response, the NT government broadly denies the claims and argues some fall outside the relevant limitation period and that prosecutors were acting in good faith. In her closing address to the jury during the trial, Ms Chalmers said the woman had "all the hallmarks of the most unreliable witness". "This is a woman who lies, she lies when she's under an obligation to tell the truth and when she's confronted with her own lie, she reverts to 'oh well I just can't recall'," she said. "It is very easy for a young woman like [the complainant] to make an allegation against a married man when there's only two of them there on the occasion in question. "It is very easy for her to make that allegation and very hard to disprove."
Malay Mail
04-07-2025
- Politics
- Malay Mail
Court of Appeal grants Tommy Thomas' bid to recuse High Court judge in Shahrir's malicious prosecution suit
PUTRAJAYA, July 4 — The Court of Appeal today allowed the appeal by former attorney-general (AG) Tan Sri Tommy Thomas to recuse a High Court judge from presiding over Tan Sri Shahrir Abdul Samad's malicious prosecution suit against him. A three-member bench comprising Justices Datuk Supang Lian, Datuk Faizah Jamaludin and Datuk Ahmad Fairuz Zainol Abidin set aside the High Court's decision. In January, the High Court judge, Roz Mawar Rozain, dismissed Thomas's application to recuse her from hearing the case. In today's proceeding, Justice Faizah, who delivered the court's unanimous decision, said there was a real danger of bias on the part of the High Court judge if she continues to hear the case, although it may be unintentional. 'The learned High Court judge is to be recused from hearing all future proceedings and the trial in the civil suit,' she said. Justice Faizah said the High Court judge's findings and observations during her ruling on Thomas's striking-out application revealed her views on the merits of Shahril's case against Thomas. 'As an informed and fair-minded bystander, given the facts and circumstances of the case, we perceive that these findings and observations do give rise to a risk of real danger of bias by the learned judge,' she said. The court ordered a legal cost of RM30,000 to be awarded to Thomas for proceedings in the High Court and the Court of Appeal. In July last year, Roz Mawar rejected Thomas' application to strike out Shahrir's lawsuit and ordered the case to go for a full hearing. Shahrir had filed the suit against Thomas, former Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) chief commissioner Latheefa Koya, the MACC and the Malaysian Government. The former Johor Bahru Member of Parliament's lawsuit concerns a RM1 million cheque he received from former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak for restoration work on the Puri Langkasuka housing project in Larkin, Johor. Thomas, who served as AG from June 2018 to February 2020, refuted Shahrir's allegations of abuse of power, describing them as 'unsustainable'. Thomas further explained that he resigned on February 28, 2020, and that Shahrir's criminal trial for the charges began on July 26, 2022. On January 5, 2023, High Court Judge Datuk Muhammad Jamil Hussin acquitted Shahrir on the charge of failing to declare the RM1 million income received from Najib to the Inland Revenue Board. — Bernama
Free Malaysia Today
04-07-2025
- Politics
- Free Malaysia Today
Ex-AG Tommy Thomas wins appeal to recuse trial judge
Tommy Thomas, who was attorney-general from June 2018 to February 2020, denied any abuse of power and said prosecution decisions were made only after reviewing investigation papers from the relevant agencies. (Bernama pic) PUTRAJAYA : The Court of Appeal has allowed former attorney-general (AG) Tommy Thomas's appeal to recuse a High Court judge from hearing a malicious prosecution lawsuit filed by former minister Shahrir Samad. Justice Faizah Jamaludin said a superior court bench would be in a better position to assess whether there was any bias on the part of the trial judge, Justice Roz Mawar Rozain, as they were not involved in the case. 'We perceive that there is a real danger of bias on the part of the trial judge, even if it might be unintentional. 'We order the judge to be recused from hearing the trial and all related proceedings,' said Faizah, who read the broad grounds of the unanimous decision. Justices Supang Lian and Ahmad Fairuz Zainol Abidin were also on the panel. The bench also ordered Shahrir to pay Thomas RM30,000 in costs. Shahrir, a former Johor Bahru MP, filed the suit in December 2022, naming Thomas, former Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) chief Latheefa Koya, MACC, and the government as defendants. The suit centres on a RM1 million cheque from former prime minister Najib Razak, said to be intended for housing project restoration in Larkin, Johor. Thomas, who was attorney-general from June 2018 to February 2020, denies any abuse of power and says prosecution decisions were made only after reviewing investigation papers from the relevant agencies. Faizah today said that the trial judge had predetermined the weight of the evidence before the trial of the civil suit by Shahrir began. She said the trial judge had summarised the contents of Thomas's memoir, 'My Story: Justice in the Wilderness', in her own words rather than reproducing Shahrir's pleadings. Faizah also said it was not true that Thomas had lobbied for the AG's post and that of the public prosecutor. Similarly, Roz Mawar's remark that Thomas had played a part in toppling the Barisan Nasional (BN) government prior to being named as AG in June 2018 was false, she said. She said Thomas's lawyer, Alan Adrian Gomez, had submitted that BN was only voted out in the 14th general election. Faizah also said that Thomas never suggested in his memoir that he had pressured MACC to investigate Shahrir. 'He only urged for a speedier and thorough investigation into Felda, Felcra and Mara by MACC,' she said. Faizah said the claim of malicious prosecution was not written in the memoir but only pleaded by Shahrir. Gomez, who appeared with Mervyn Lai and Haikaldin Mahyidin, told reporters that parties would appear before the trial judge on Aug 11. Lawyer Firoz Hussein Ahmad Jamaludin said he would take instructions from Shahrir on whether to file an appeal in the Federal Court.
Free Malaysia Today
05-06-2025
- Politics
- Free Malaysia Today
Court reserves judgment in Tommy Thomas's appeal to recuse judge
Former attorney-general Tommy Thomas's lawyer argued that High Court judge Roz Mawar Rozain was biased and had shown prejudgment when she dismissed his client's application to strike out the suit. PUTRAJAYA : The Court of Appeal has reserved judgment in former attorney-general Tommy Thomas's appeal to disqualify a High Court judge from hearing a malicious prosecution lawsuit filed by former minister Shahrir Samad. The three-member bench, led by Justice Supang Lian and comprising Justices Faizah Jamaludin and Ahmad Fairuz Zainol Abidin, said it would consider both written and oral submissions. A case management has been scheduled for June 12 to fix a date for the decision. Thomas's lawyer Alan Adrian Gomez argued that High Court judge Roz Mawar Rozain was biased and had shown prejudgment when she dismissed his client's application to strike out the suit. He claimed the judge relied on Thomas's memoir, My Story: Justice in the Wilderness, to suggest that Thomas had pressured the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) to investigate Shahrir. 'Thomas will not be accorded a fair trial as there is a breach of natural justice,' he added. 'Thomas only asked MACC investigators to complete the probe expeditiously,' Gomez said, adding that while Thomas approved Shahrir's prosecution, it was his successor, Idrus Harun, who decided to proceed with the trial. Gomez also took issue with the judge's remark in her judgment that Thomas, before becoming attorney-general in June 2018, had helped topple the Barisan Nasional government. 'BN was voted out in the 14th general election,' he said. In response, Shahrir's lawyer Firoz Hussein Ahmad Jamaluddin argued that the recusal bid was baseless and made only after the strike-out application failed. He said a judge cannot be disqualified simply for making adverse rulings and noted that judges routinely dismiss strike-out applications but still go on to hear the full case if the plaintiff had an arguable case. He said the judge, in this case, wanted the trial to proceed as there was a prima facie case for malicious prosecution. 'The trial should proceed so that the truth can be tested through cross-examination,' Firoz said. He also highlighted that an MACC officer testified in Shahrir's money laundering trial that the investigation was incomplete when charges were filed. On Jan 5, 2023, High Court judge Jamil Hussin acquitted Shahrir of failing to declare RM1 million received from former prime minister Najib Razak to the tax authorities after the prosecution decided not to continue the case. Thomas filed the recusal application on Aug 26, 2023, alleging that Roz Mawar made baseless findings inconsistent with the lawsuit and evidence. Shahrir opposed the application, arguing that dissatisfaction with a ruling was not grounds for recusal. On July 3 last year, the judge dismissed Thomas's attempt to strike out the lawsuit. Shahrir, a former Johor Bahru MP, filed the suit in December 2022, naming Thomas, former MACC chief Latheefa Koya, MACC and the government as defendants. The suit centres on a RM1 million cheque from Najib, said to be intended for housing project restoration in Larkin, Johor. Thomas, who was attorney-general from June 2018 to February 2020, denies any abuse of power and says prosecution decisions were made only after reviewing investigation papers from relevant agencies. He resigned in February 2020, while Shahrir's trial began in July 2022.
Daily Mail
03-06-2025
- Business
- Daily Mail
Democrat mayor SUES Trump darling Alina Habba for ordering his ICE arrest
The mayor of Newark, New Jersey has filed a lawsuit against Trump prosecutor Alina Habba following a dramatic arrest last month at an immigration detention facility. Democrat Ras Baraka, who is running to be New Jersey's next governor, filed the federal lawsuit on Tuesday against Habba, the interim US Attorney for the District of New Jersey. The suit accuses her of false arrest, malicious prosecution and defaming him in an effort to advance her political career, according to the Wall Street Journal. The MAGA prosecutor had charged Baraka with trespassing when he arrived at Delaney Hall in the outskirts of Newark, which is now being used as a migrant detention center, on May 9. But less than two weeks later, Habba - who once served as Trump's personal attorney - announced her office was dropping the charges against Baraka without offering any explanation. The mayor is seeking an unspecified amount of 'compensatory damages for pain, suffering, stress, humiliation' and other purported consequences of the incident, as well as punitive damages. However, Baraka argued his lawsuit 'is not about revenge' 'Ultimately, I think this is about them taking accountability for what has happened to me,' he said at a news conference outside the federal courthouse in Newark. 'Somebody should be responsible for what happened,' he continued, according to the New York Times. 'To handcuff me, to drag me away, to take my fingerprints and mugshots for a misdemeanor, it's egregious and malicious.' 'The reality is I didn't do anything. I went down there for a press conference. I was invited to the gate, people approached me and were very loud and abusive to me,' he continued. The mayor has maintained that he was invited to the property to conduct oversight along with members of New Jersey's congressional delegation - Rob Menendez, LaMonica McIver and Bonnie Watson Coleman. But when Baraka arrived, he claims Ricky Patel, the supervising agent with Homeland Security Investigations who is also named as a defendant in the case, denied him entry into the facility and asked him to leave the premises. Patel even threatened to arrest him and allegedly egged his fellow agents to 'take him down, at which point Baraka says Homeland Security agents violently pulled his arms, handcuffed him and took him into custody, Politico reports. Dramatic footage from the scene then shows the mayor walking from the facility side of the incident showed Baraka walking from the facility side of the fence to the street side, where residents were protesting the ICE facility. Soon, uniformed officials could be seen coming to arrest him. As they did, people could be heard urging the group to protect the mayor. The video shows a crowd forming and pushing as officials led off a handcuffed Baraka. The mayor's lawsuit now claims Habba authorized his 'false arrest' in violation of the Fourth Amendment despite 'clear evidence that Mayor Baraka had not committed the petty offense of' defiant trespass. It argues she instead was acting as a 'political operative' in bringing the trespassing charge against him. The federal suit also contends that race played a role in the episode, alleging that Habba and Patel sought 'to assure that the evening news included videos of the black mayor of Newark, New Jersey being led away in handcuffs by federal officials.' Additionally, it accuses Habba of making defamatory statements in media interviews and on social media, wrongfully accusing Baraka of grandstanding and saying he willingly chose to disobey the law. Much of the lawsuit leans on remarks US Magistrate Judge Andre Espinosa made as he hit out at Habba and her office when he threw away the charges. 'The hasty arrest of Newark Mayor Ras Baraka, followed swiftly by the dismissal of these trespassing charges a mere 13 days later, suggests a worrisome misstep by your Office,' the judge wrote in his ruling. The fact that the trespassing charge was withdrawn, Baraka said, meant he had to defend himself in the media and argue his case when he had done nothing wrong. 'I want somebody to apologize, write a letter, say this was wrong, come out and say, "We shouldn´t have done this,"' the mayor said at his press conference. Aides to the Newark mayor have further claimed that Patel received several calls just before Baraka was taken into custody, according to the Times. His lawyer, Nancy Erika Smith, said the lawsuit will now enable her to subpoena the supervising agent's phone records to determine who he may have been speaking to. The lawsuit also serves as a response to another suit the Justice Department filed against Newark and three other New Jersey cities over their sanctuary policies, Baraka said. But it comes on the first day of early voting in the Democratic primary for governor to succeed term-limited Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy. The Newark mayor has portrayed himself in the election as the most aggressive Democrat to fight the Trump administration. At his press conference on Tuesday, though, Baraka described the arrest and fallout as a distraction from his campaign. 'But I also think that us not responding is consent,' he said. He is being supported in his lawsuit by Congresswoman McIver, who is facing two assault charges relating to the May 9 protest. She has denied the charges, and a preliminary hearing is scheduled later this month. 'The way Mayor Baraka was treated at Delaney Hall was outrageous,' she told 'It is beyond clear that there were never any legal or factual basis to arrest or charge him. 'The [Trump] administration's playing politics with our justice system is disgraceful,' McIver added. Habba shared her thoughts on the matter in a post on X Monday night In fact Smith said she expects to sue Trump's administration, but is required to wait six months. 'It's really important for all of us to stand up for democracy,' the lawyer said. 'Mayor Baraka files this lawsuit not just to vindicate himself, but for all of us, for our freedom, for all our constitutional rights.' Neither Habba nor Patel have responded to the lawsuit, and has reached out to the US Attorney's Office for the District of New Jersey. But in a post on X Monday night, Habba wrote: 'My advice to the mayor - feel free to join me in prioritizing violent crime and public safety. Far better use of time for the great citizens of New Jersey.' Meanwhile, Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin told 'Mayor Baraka is trying to rewrite history with this frivolous lawsuit. 'It's too late: The American people saw with their own eyes his actions that put the safety of our law enforcement agents and the staff at Delaney Hall at risk — all for the sake of the dangerous criminals housed there.'
