High Court dismisses damages claim in long-running litigation against Norfolk Police valued in excess of £18m

The judgment of Cotter J in Breeze and Wilson v Chief Constable of Norfolk Constabulary [2025] EWHC 2684 (KB) has been handed down.

The Claimants brought claims in malicious prosecution and misfeasance in public office following their discontinued prosecution in 2009 on a charge of conspiracy to defraud. The criminal charges related to the Claimants’ running of a business providing private sector mental health care to the NHS. The dismissal of the case following a trial in March-April 2025 marks the conclusion of complex litigation spanning 10 years. Charlotte Ventham KC was instructed (by Weightmans LLP) for the Chief Constable throughout.

The Claimants made wide-ranging allegations of misconduct, dishonesty and abuse of power against police officers, including tampering with and suppressing evidence and deliberately distorting the evidential picture in the presentation of the case to the CPS. The Claimants initially sought damages of £30m for financial losses incurred by the business as a result of the prosecution. The recoverability of such losses was successfully challenged by the Chief Constable earlier in the litigation: see in particular Breeze and Wilson v Chief Constable of Norfolk Constabulary [2022] EWHC 942 (QB). The Claimants subsequently re-formulated their financial loss claim in the sum of more than £18m.

At trial, the Chief Constable called five police officers to give oral evidence. Both Claimants and a further 10 witnesses called by them were cross-examined. In a robust judgment rejecting all allegations of bad faith on the part of any of the officers, Cotter J doubted the accuracy, reliability and/or truthfulness of numerous aspects of the evidence given by or on behalf of the Claimants, highlighting in particular four of the Claimants’ witnesses “whose statements for this action give some cause for concern”. The contested elements of each cause of action were determined in the Chief Constable’s favour: the police officers (or any one of them) were not the prosecutors, there was reasonable and probable cause for the prosecution and there was no malice. The claim in misfeasance failed for the same reasons, as well as on limitation grounds.

Charlotte Ventham KC appeared (with Andrew Warnock KC) for the Chief Constable at trial. Charlotte has unrivalled expertise in the conduct of complex and high-value malfeasance claims against the police and other law enforcement/prosecuting authorities. She acted for the Commissioner in long-running and multi-faceted litigation arising from the infamous 1987 murder of private investigator, Daniel Morgan, including the damages claims for malicious prosecution in Rees v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2018] EWCA Civ 1587 and [2021] EWCA Civ 49. Earlier this year, Charlotte led a team of five counsel in a four-week High Court trial, successfully defending malicious prosecution and misfeasance claims against the Department for Transport arising from an abortive fraud prosecution: see Wilson & others v Department for Transport [2025] EWHC 1387 (KB).