I acted for the successful appellant in the recent House of Lords case of Martin v Martin [1995] The Times, 14 July, concerning the tort of malicious prosecution.After a three-day hearing in early June, their Lordships unanimously upheld the first instance judgment of his Honour Judge Goodman given at Bromley County Court on 13 July 1992.

Mr Martin had been awarded damages of £3500 and costs following a finding that Mrs Watson had falsely and maliciously accused my client of indecent exposure which led to his arrest and prosecution.

In upholding the decision, Lord Keith of Kinkel, who delivered the judgment, stated that to find otherwise, in the circ umstances 'would constitute a serious denial of justice'.Indeed, if Mr Martin had failed in his appeal, it would have meant that anyone in any case, no matter how serious, could go to the police and tell a complete pack of lies with the purpose of getting someone prosecuted.

As a result, the real victim would have no civil redress for potentially serious consequences including long periods remanded in custody, the loss of job, reputation and possibly irreparable damage to family relationships.

Other actions against false accusers such as prosecution for attempting to pervert the course of justice, wasting police time or perjury do not offer a remedy in damages to the victim.The case arose out of a long-standing dispute between neighbours whose gardens had a common boundary.

Discord originally occurred over a dog's barking and was fuelled by a number of other domestic disagreements.

In 1987 and 1988, Mrs Watson made complaints to the police that Mr Martin had indecently exposed himself to her.

No further action was taken by the police or Mrs Watson.Acrimony reached its zenith when, on 20 July 1989, Mrs Watson made a further complaint to the police that Mr Martin had exposed himself.

On 27 July the police obtained a warrant for the arrest of Mr Martin from Bromley Magistrates' Court, but the police did not immediately act on the warrant.

Mrs Watson made two further allegations of exposure.

Subsequently Mr Martin was arrested, interviewed and charged with wilfully and lewdly exposing himself with intent to insult a female contrary to s 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824, and then granted bail.

The charge sheet was signed by a police sergeant.

At his first appearance in Bromley Magistrates' Court, the Crown Prosecution Service offered no evidence and the case against my client was dismissed.Mr Martin found the allegations and subsequent prosecution highly stressful and damaging and initiated a civil claim for the tort of malicious prosecution at Bromley County Court.There are four essential elements to the tort.

The plaintiff must show:(i) that he was prosecuted by the defendant or that the law was 'set in motion' by the defendant or that the defendant was 'actively instrumental in the making or prosecuting of a charge';(ii) that the prosecution was determined in his favour;(iii) that the defendant was acting maliciously;(iv) that no reasonable or probable cause existed for the prosecution.It was common ground between the parties that Judge Goodman was entitled to find in Mr Martin's favour as to (ii), (iii) and (iv).

The dispute settled by their Lordships concerned the definition of the first element: who can be 'a prosecutor' and whether the learned judge was entitled to find on the facts that the respondent was his prosecutor.

Their Lordships were also asked to clarify in what circumstances a person in the respondent's position can be protected from malicious prosecution proceedings by the rule of public policy, which confers immunity from suit on a witness in relation to their evidence.Prior to the Lords' ruling, there was no reported English decision dealing specifically with the issue of whether a defendant in a malicious prosecution action who has falsely and maliciously accused the plaintiff to the police has 'set the law in motion'.

However, the House of Lords was invited to consider a stream of case law emanating from various Commonwealth countries including India, Australia, British Columbia and New Zealand connected by a common thread of principle.Although stated in a variety of forms, the essence of this principle is that if an accuser knowingly reports a false crime to the police and assists the police in initiating a prosecution, it is improper to allow the accuser to escape liability merely because the accuser had not technically initiated the prosecution, eg by some formal act such as laying an information or signing a charge sheet (or conducting the prosecution).

These decisions largely favoured the appellant's case.Finding in Mr Martin's favour, their Lordships stated that 'there is no good reason here for making a distinction between persons who procure a police prosecution and those who are technically prosecutors'.

They also rejected the respondent's witness immunity argument on the basis that malicious prosecution essentially involves an abuse of the court process and it is immaterial that the abuse may also have involved giving evidence in court.Clearly the decision has little or no impact on individuals pursuing private prosecutions where there can be no doubt that they are the prosecutor.

Actions which were formerly, perhaps misfoundedly, directed against the police may now be more likely to be commenced against the accuser.

Even before Martin v Watson plaintiffs had the difficulty of proving that the police acted maliciously, when in the majority of cases the police could successfully argue that they were acting in good faith on information received from a member of the public, even if the original allegation was false.Follow Martin v Watson, practitioners are more likely than before to advise that a claim can be made against an individual in appropriate circumstances following a police/Crown Prosecution Service prosecution.

Practitioners will also have to advise their clients of the difficulties, the numerous legal hurdles to be overcome and the potential evidential problems.

Proceedings are also likely to be hotly disputed and the Legal Aid Board will probably require corroboration in most cases, in addition to the proposed plaintiff's evidence, to fund an action.