Malicious Prosecution in Trinidad and Tobago: Elements, Defences, and Damages

If you were prosecuted for a criminal offence without reasonable cause and the proceedings ended in your favour — whether by acquittal, a nolle prosequi entered by the Director of Public Prosecutions, or withdrawal of charges — you may have a civil claim for malicious prosecution. To succeed, you must prove five elements: (1) that the defendant initiated or continued the prosecution against you; (2) that the prosecution was concluded in your favour; (3) that there was no reasonable and probable cause for the prosecution; (4) that the defendant acted with malice; and (5) that you suffered damage as a result. Claims against the State and the police are brought against the Attorney General as defendant under the State Liability and Proceedings Act, Chapter 8:02. The limitation period is four years from the date the criminal proceedings terminated in your favour — missing that window extinguishes your claim entirely.

The Five Elements of Malicious Prosecution

1. Prosecution Initiated by the Defendant

The defendant must have actively set the law in motion against the claimant. It is not enough that someone merely provided information to the police and the police then decided independently to charge. Where a complainant reports a matter and police exercise their own judgment to prosecute, the complainant may not be held liable as the prosecutor — the prosecution is the police's act, not theirs.

However, where a person goes beyond providing information and takes positive steps to procure the prosecution — pressuring the police to charge, swearing a statement knowing it to be false, attending before a magistrate as the informant, or persistently urging the authorities to proceed — the courts have been prepared to treat that person as having initiated the prosecution. In practice, most claims in Trinidad and Tobago are brought against the Attorney General as the defendant representing the State and its officers (police constables, investigators, prosecutors) who were directly responsible for charging and continuing the prosecution.

The key rule: a defendant who takes active steps to cause criminal proceedings to be brought against a claimant, rather than merely supplying information which the police act upon independently, will be treated as having initiated the prosecution.

2. Without Reasonable and Probable Cause — The Two-Limb Test

Absence of reasonable and probable cause is widely regarded as the most technically demanding element of the tort. The test is both subjective and objective, and both limbs must be satisfied. The classic statement of the test comes from Hicks v Faulkner [1878] 8 QBD 167, where Hawkins J held that reasonable and probable cause means "an honest belief in the guilt of the accused based upon a full conviction, founded upon reasonable grounds, of the existence of a state of circumstances, which, assuming them to be true, would reasonably lead any ordinarily prudent and cautious man, placed in the position of the accuser, to the conclusion that the person charged was probably guilty of the crime imputed."

Breaking that down into the two limbs:

Subjective limb: Did the defendant honestly believe, at the time they initiated or continued the prosecution, that the claimant was guilty? A defendant who harboured private doubt about the claimant's guilt but pressed ahead regardless fails this limb.

Objective limb: Even if the defendant genuinely believed the claimant was guilty, was that belief reasonable on the facts available to them? A defendant who believed something no reasonable person in their position could have believed also fails — even if that belief was sincere.

Both limbs must be absent before the element is made out. A defendant with an honest (if unreasonable) belief satisfies the subjective limb and may escape liability on this element. This two-limb structure is the critical analytical gap that many claimants and their advisors miss: it is not sufficient to show that the prosecution was weak, that the charges were dropped, or even that the claimant was acquitted. The claimant must prove the defendant lacked an honest belief, and that any such belief would have been unreasonable.

The governing rule: Absence of reasonable and probable cause requires proof of both the absence of honest subjective belief and the absence of objectively reasonable grounds — the mere fact of acquittal or charge withdrawal does not by itself establish this element.

3. Malice

Malice does not require proof of spite, ill-will, or personal animosity toward the claimant. It means that the prosecution was initiated or continued for an improper purpose — for a purpose other than bringing an offender to justice. Examples of improper purpose include prosecuting to silence a witness, to intimidate a commercial competitor, to achieve a collateral advantage unrelated to criminal justice, or to cover up prior wrongdoing.

A critical practitioner point: malice can be inferred from the total absence of reasonable and probable cause. Where the absence of any reasonable basis for the prosecution is so clear and so obvious that no honest person could have believed in the claimant's guilt, the court may draw an inference that the defendant's true motive was improper. This is not automatic — it remains an inference that a court may draw from all the circumstances — but it is a well-established route to proof of malice where direct evidence of improper motive is unavailable.

Negligence or honest error is not malice. A prosecutor who genuinely but mistakenly believed there was a case to answer, and acted on that belief throughout, will not be found to have acted with malice — even if that belief was unreasonable — unless the claimant also establishes absence of subjective honest belief.

The governing rule: Malice means prosecution for an improper purpose; it may be inferred from the total absence of reasonable and probable cause, but honest error — even gross error — does not suffice.

4. Termination of the Prosecution in the Claimant's Favour

The criminal proceedings must have ended in a way that is inconsistent with the guilt of the accused. Termination in the claimant's favour includes:

What does not satisfy this element: conviction on any charge arising from the same incident (even a lesser charge), conviction followed by a pardon, or a stay of proceedings that does not constitute an acquittal on the merits. Where a person is convicted on a lesser included offence even though acquitted on the main charge, the element is not made out in respect of the prosecution as a whole.

The governing rule: The prosecution must have ended in a manner that is, on its face, inconsistent with the claimant's guilt — acquittal, withdrawal, nolle prosequi, or successful no-case submission all satisfy this requirement; conviction on any charge does not.

5. Damage

For prosecutions on indictable offences — those carrying the risk of imprisonment — damage is presumed by law. The claimant does not need to prove specific financial loss: the interference with liberty and reputation inherent in being prosecuted for a serious offence is itself treated as damage.

For summary offences (heard before a Magistrate), the presumption does not apply. The claimant must prove actual damage, which may include: damage to reputation in the community or profession; financial loss (lost employment, lost contracts, costs of defending the criminal proceedings); psychiatric injury or recognised mental illness; or other tangible harm flowing from the prosecution.

In practice, where a claimant has been remanded in custody for a prolonged period — as in the Naipaul-Coolman litigation discussed below — the courts have awarded substantial general damages reflecting the gravity of the imprisonment and its effects on the claimant's life and family.

The DPP's Role and Nolle Prosequi

The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) occupies a constitutionally independent office in Trinidad and Tobago. Under s.87 of the Constitution of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, the DPP has the power to institute, undertake, and discontinue criminal proceedings, and cannot be directed by any other person or authority in the exercise of those functions.

The DPP's power to enter a nolle prosequi — a formal notice that the State will prosecute no further — can be exercised at any stage of criminal proceedings, including proceedings on indictment before the High Court. Entry of a nolle prosequi terminates the prosecution and satisfies the "termination in the claimant's favour" requirement for the purposes of a subsequent civil claim for malicious prosecution.

It is important to note that the nolle prosequi is the DPP's act, not a judicial acquittal. Its entry does not, of itself, constitute a finding that the accused was innocent or that there was no evidence against them. However, for the civil law purposes of malicious prosecution, it is accepted as a favourable termination.

Private prosecutions brought by private citizens — available in limited circumstances under the Summary Courts Act — can equally give rise to a claim in malicious prosecution if the private prosecutor initiated the prosecution maliciously and without reasonable and probable cause.

Abuse of Process — An Alternative Claim

Where a claimant cannot fully establish all five elements of malicious prosecution — most commonly because malice cannot be proved to the required standard — the tort of abuse of process may offer an alternative or supplementary remedy.

Abuse of process covers the deliberate misuse of the court's procedure for an improper purpose. Unlike malicious prosecution, abuse of process does not require proof that the proceedings terminated in the claimant's favour, and is available in civil as well as criminal proceedings. The essential requirement is that the defendant used legal process as a weapon to achieve an end unconnected with the purpose for which that process was designed.

In the criminal context, a claimant might argue abuse of process where, for example, charges were brought or maintained not genuinely to pursue a prosecution to verdict, but to compel the claimant to give information, to damage them commercially, or to suppress their exercise of a legal right. Courts in Trinidad and Tobago have followed the English development of this tort, though the jurisprudence remains less developed than malicious prosecution.

The key practitioner point: Where malice cannot be established to the required standard, always consider whether the facts support a concurrent or alternative claim in abuse of process — it is a distinct cause of action with a different, sometimes easier, threshold.

Suing the State vs. Individual Officers

Claims Against the State

Where the malicious prosecution was carried out by police officers, immigration officers, or other servants of the State, the claim is brought against the Attorney General as defendant, pursuant to s.19(2) of the State Liability and Proceedings Act, Chapter 8:02. The State is vicariously liable for the torts of its officers committed in the course of their employment or purported exercise of their duties.

Before filing proceedings, claimants should send a pre-action protocol letter to the Solicitor General (acting on behalf of the Attorney General), setting out the nature of the claim, the relevant facts, and the compensation sought. This is standard practice in State liability claims and is expected by the courts.

Claims exceeding TT$15,000 must be filed in the High Court — they cannot be brought in the Magistracy.

Personal Liability of Individual Officers

An emerging development in Trinidad and Tobago jurisprudence is the question of personal suits against individual police officers. Reporting in 2022 indicated that courts were beginning to consider claims brought directly against officers involved in fabricating evidence, planting evidence, or otherwise personally driving a malicious prosecution. This remains a developing and not yet fully settled area of law, but it is a significant trend: it signals that individual officers cannot necessarily rely on the shield of vicarious State liability to insulate them personally from the consequences of their misconduct.

Claimants and their attorneys should monitor this development carefully, particularly in cases involving fabricated confessions, planted evidence, or identifiable individual officers who demonstrably acted outside any lawful purpose.

What T&T Courts Have Awarded

The following table summarises confirmed or publicly reported awards in malicious prosecution and related claims in Trinidad and Tobago:

Case Award (TT$) Notes
Nine Naipaul-Coolman accused v AG ~TT$20 million combined Nine men held on remand for approximately 10 years for murder; acquitted 2016; Privy Council refused the State's final appeal 2025/2026 — the largest known malicious prosecution payout in T&T history
Curtis Baker v AG TT$1,100,000 Combined award for false imprisonment and malicious prosecution
Marke Blake v AG TT$450,000 3.5-year prosecution
Dexter Gaulteau v AG TT$198,500 General damages TT$150,000; exemplary damages TT$30,000; special damages TT$18,500; fabricated confessions found; judgment by Justice Donaldson-Honeywell
Harridath Maharaj v State Claim dismissed Privy Council (January 2024) upheld Court of Appeal reversal — demonstrates that a claimant can lose on the element of malice even where charges were withdrawn; acquittal alone is not sufficient

The Naipaul-Coolman litigation stands as a landmark in T&T legal history. Nine men were charged with murder and held on remand for approximately a decade before their acquittal in 2016. The scale of the award reflects both the length of the deprivation of liberty and the gravity of the prosecution's failure. The Privy Council's refusal to interfere with the award in 2025/2026 confirms that T&T courts will award substantial compensation where the facts demand it.

The Maharaj case is equally instructive as a cautionary example: even where the State withdrew charges — satisfying the termination element — the Privy Council held that malice was not established on the evidence. A claimant who cannot prove the defendant's improper purpose will fail, however strong the rest of the case.

False Imprisonment Distinguished

Malicious prosecution and false imprisonment are distinct causes of action, though they can and frequently do arise from the same incident and should be pleaded together where the facts support both.

False imprisonment consists of the complete deprivation of a person's liberty without any lawful authority, even for a brief period. It does not require proof of malice, absence of reasonable cause, or damage — the wrongful confinement is itself the wrong. If a police officer arrests without lawful authority, that is false imprisonment regardless of what the officer believed.

Malicious prosecution, by contrast, concerns the misuse of the judicial process — the act of bringing or continuing criminal proceedings without reasonable cause and with malice. The damage flows from the prosecution itself: the public stigma of being charged, the obligation to attend court, the risk of conviction and imprisonment.

In practice: a claimant who was arrested without a warrant and held without lawful authority, then charged and prosecuted without reasonable cause, may plead false imprisonment for the period of unlawful detention and malicious prosecution for the prosecution that followed. Both claims are then assessed separately and damages awarded accordingly.

The governing distinction: False imprisonment requires only wrongful confinement; malicious prosecution requires all five elements including malice and absence of reasonable cause — but both can be pleaded together where the facts support them.

Limitation Period — A Critical Trap

The limitation period for claims against the State under the State Liability and Proceedings Act, Chapter 8:02 is four years from the date on which the cause of action accrued.

For malicious prosecution, the cause of action accrues on the date the criminal proceedings terminate in the claimant's favour — the date of acquittal, the date the nolle prosequi is entered, or the date charges are formally withdrawn. That is the date from which the four-year clock begins to run.

This is shorter than many claimants expect. A person who was acquitted in 2022 and does not file proceedings by 2026 will be statute-barred — the claim cannot be brought regardless of its merits. Courts have consistently refused to extend time in State liability claims where the claimant simply delayed in seeking legal advice.

The governing rule: a claimant who does not file their malicious prosecution claim within four years of the favourable termination of criminal proceedings loses their right to sue — permanently and without exception.

If you were acquitted or had your charges withdrawn, seek legal advice immediately. Do not wait.

What the Law Says

Key Statutes

Statute Relevance
State Liability and Proceedings Act, Chapter 8:02 Governs claims against the State; Attorney General as defendant (s.19(2)); 4-year limitation period (s.3(1))
Criminal Procedure Act, Chapter 12:02 Governs DPP's power to enter nolle prosequi; criminal procedure generally
Constitution of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, s.87 Constitutional independence of the DPP; power to institute, undertake, and discontinue criminal proceedings
Summary Courts Act Governs summary proceedings before Magistrates; private prosecutions

Key Cases

Case Court Principle
Hicks v Faulkner [1878] 8 QBD 167 England (QBD) Classic two-limb test for reasonable and probable cause
Nine Naipaul-Coolman accused v AG T&T High Court / Privy Council (2025/2026) Largest known T&T malicious prosecution award; ~TT$20 million combined
Harridath Maharaj v State Privy Council (January 2024) Claimant can lose on malice even where charges were withdrawn
Dexter Gaulteau v AG T&T High Court Fabricated confessions; exemplary damages awarded; Justice Donaldson-Honeywell
Curtis Baker v AG T&T High Court Combined false imprisonment and malicious prosecution; TT$1.1 million

Frequently Asked Questions

What is malicious prosecution?

Malicious prosecution is a civil tort — a civil wrong — that gives a person the right to sue for compensation when criminal proceedings were brought against them without reasonable and probable cause, for an improper purpose (malice), and the proceedings ended in their favour. It is distinct from a criminal complaint or an appeal against conviction. It is a civil claim, brought in the High Court, usually against the Attorney General where the prosecution was brought by State officers, or against the individual who procured the prosecution if it was a private complainant. The purpose of the action is to compensate the claimant for the harm caused by being subjected to an unjustified prosecution — damage to reputation, financial loss, psychiatric harm, and in serious cases the deprivation of liberty while on remand.

What is "reasonable and probable cause" and how does it differ from mere suspicion?

Reasonable and probable cause requires both an honest belief in the accused's guilt (subjective limb) and reasonable grounds for that belief (objective limb). Mere suspicion — a feeling that something is wrong, or a hunch that the person may have committed the offence — is not sufficient to constitute reasonable and probable cause. The test set out in Hicks v Faulkner [1878] 8 QBD 167 requires "a full conviction, founded upon reasonable grounds, of the existence of a state of circumstances" that would lead any ordinarily prudent and cautious person to conclude the accused was probably guilty. Both limbs must be present: an honest but unreasonable belief may satisfy the subjective test but fails the objective test; and an objectively reasonable case does not help a defendant who privately disbelieved it. The claimant must prove the absence of both limbs.

How do courts decide whether there was malice?

Malice is proved in one of two principal ways. First, direct evidence of improper purpose: for example, a police officer who made a statement in a memo, gave evidence, or whose conduct at the time reveals they were motivated by personal gain, a cover-up, or a desire to harm the claimant rather than to bring them to justice. Second — and critically — malice can be inferred from the total absence of reasonable and probable cause. Where the absence of any proper basis for the prosecution is so clear and obvious that no honest person could have believed in the charges, the court may infer that the real motive was improper. This is not automatic, and courts scrutinise it carefully, but it is an available and important route to proof where the direct evidence of improper motive is thin.

What does "termination in my favour" mean?

It means the criminal proceedings ended in a manner that is, at face value, inconsistent with your guilt. This includes: acquittal by judge or jury at trial; a successful no-case submission (where the court found there was no evidence to answer); entry of a nolle prosequi by the Director of Public Prosecutions; withdrawal of the charges by the prosecution; or formal discontinuance of proceedings. It does not include: conviction on any charge arising from the same set of facts (even a lesser charge); a stay of proceedings that is not a substantive acquittal; or a pardon following conviction. The Harridath Maharaj v State decision by the Privy Council in January 2024 is an important reminder that even where charges are withdrawn — satisfying this element — the claimant can still lose if malice is not established.

How much compensation can I claim?

Awards in Trinidad and Tobago have ranged from TT$198,500 (Dexter Gaulteau, fabricated confessions, short prosecution) to approximately TT$20 million combined in the Naipaul-Coolman litigation, where nine men were held on remand for a murder charge for approximately ten years before acquittal in 2016. The quantum depends on: the length and gravity of the prosecution; whether you were remanded in custody and for how long; the nature and extent of damage to your reputation; financial losses (employment, business, legal costs); psychiatric injury; and whether the court considers the conduct serious enough to merit exemplary (punitive) damages. General damages for indictable prosecutions are presumed; exemplary damages require egregious conduct such as fabrication of evidence.

What is the time limit for bringing a claim?

Four years from the date the criminal proceedings terminated in your favour, under s.3(1) of the State Liability and Proceedings Act, Chapter 8:02. This is an absolute limitation: once the four years have expired, you cannot bring the claim, regardless of how strong the merits are. The clock starts on the date of acquittal, the date the nolle prosequi was entered, or the date the charges were formally withdrawn — whichever applies to your case. If you are close to the four-year mark, seek legal advice immediately. Filing a claim, even while negotiations are ongoing, preserves your position.

What is the difference between malicious prosecution and false imprisonment?

False imprisonment is the complete and wrongful deprivation of a person's liberty without lawful authority. It requires no proof of malice, improper purpose, or absence of reasonable cause — the unlawful detention is itself the wrong, and damage is presumed. Malicious prosecution, by contrast, concerns the misuse of criminal proceedings: it requires all five elements including malice and absence of reasonable and probable cause, and focuses on the harm caused by being subjected to the process of prosecution rather than (or in addition to) unlawful detention. In practice, the two claims often arise together: if you were arrested unlawfully and then prosecuted without reasonable cause and maliciously, you can plead both. They are assessed separately, but both arise from the same incident, and both claims should be brought together in the same proceedings.

Summary

Malicious prosecution is one of the most powerful civil remedies available to a person who has been subjected to an unjustified criminal prosecution in Trinidad and Tobago. The five elements — initiation, absence of reasonable and probable cause, malice, favourable termination, and damage — each carry technical complexity that can defeat a claim if not properly understood and pleaded. The two-limb test for reasonable and probable cause, the inference of malice from the total absence of cause, and the strict four-year limitation period are the three areas where claims most commonly succeed or fail.

Awards by T&T courts confirm that the remedy is real and substantial. The Naipaul-Coolman litigation demonstrates that where the State's conduct is egregious and the claimant's suffering profound, the courts will not shy from awarding compensation that reflects the full gravity of what occurred.

If you believe you have a claim, act promptly. The limitation clock starts the moment your criminal proceedings end in your favour.

Written by Martin George, Attorney-at-Law. Martin George is the founder and principal attorney of Martin George & Company, with more than 35 years of active legal practice in the courts of Trinidad and Tobago. He is a former Commissioner on the Law Reform Commission of Trinidad and Tobago and a member of the Prime Minister's Constitutional Committee for Internal Self-Government for Tobago. This article is published for general information and public legal education. It does not constitute legal advice. For advice on your specific situation, contact Martin George & Company.

Last reviewed: April 2026