Firm made 'serious error' over oppressive private prosecution

A firm has been criticised by senior judges for its part in a ‘truly oppressive’ private prosecution. 

Lord Justice William Davis and Mrs Justice Mary Stacey threw out a judicial review application aimed at reviving the prosecution, which had been set aside by Westminster Magistrates Court earlier this year.

In doing so, the judges were critical of the motivation for bringing the case and condemned the role played by private prosecution specialist Edmonds Marshall McMahon (EMM Legal).

Husband and wife Pradeep and Sangita Morjaria had instructed EMM to issue summonses against his former business associate Camran Mirza and his wife and son. Civil proceedings were also issued through City firm Jones Day alleging various breaches of fiduciary duty and misrepresentations.

The court heard that Pradeep Morjaria had sent a document to EMM stating ‘we need serious fire power and threat of maximum JAIL term to bring [Mirza] to his knees and make him want to settle’. Morjaria’s son later emailed EMM to suggest that ‘strategically it is important to mention CM’s wife’.

Morjaria emailed EMM at one point saying he wanted a one-to-one meeting with Mirza to give him a chance to settle the civil proceedings. EMM responded to advise that the criminal court would take a ‘dim view’ of using criminal proceedings to obtain a settlement, but the firm was reassured that ‘You have made it clear to me many times that justice is the number 1 priority for you’.

Sitting at Westminster, District Judge Sternberg said EMM’s response had been designed to put a ‘gloss’ on what Morjaria had said and what his real motivations were.

He said the proceedings were an abuse of process, designed to threaten Mirza and his family for leverage over the civil claim. The exchanges with his lawyers were the key indicator of this true motivation. The judge went on to say that the prosecution’s failure to make proper disclosure was ‘serious and substantial’, although he made no finding of misconduct against the lawyers.

On appeal, Morjaria submitted that the judge’s finding on motive had been ‘irrational’ and that he had been wrong in law to find proceedings were an abuse of process.

These arguments were dismissed on application for JR. William Davis LJ said the exchanges between Morjaria and his son and their lawyers were evidence of the ‘truly oppressive nature of the criminal proceedings’.

On the conduct of EMM, the court found the district judge had been ‘generous’ not to make any finding of misconduct. The firm had said many times in exchanges that justice was Morjaria’s number one priority, an assertion which ‘smacks of disingenuity’.

‘The judge may not have found that the failure to disclose the messages between PM and his lawyers was manipulation of the application for the summonses or that there had been misconduct, said Williams Davis LJ. ‘In our view the judge did not exculpate the lawyers. There was a failure to disclose highly relevant material. That failure was a serious error irrespective of culpability.’

Mirza and other defendants were represented during proceedings by London firm Candey. The firm instructed Adrian Darbishire KC and Tom Doble of QEB Hollis Whiteman.

This article is now closed for comment.