Right to sue: Roseanne Beckett. Photo: Jacky Ghossein
Roseanne Catt, now known as Roseanne Beckett, was convicted of attempting to poison and conspiracy to murder her husband, Barry Catt, in 1991, but most of the nine charges against her were quashed by the Court of Criminal Appeal in 2001 and sent back to trial.
The Director of Public Prosecutions decided not to proceed with the prosecution and Ms Beckett claimed to have been framed and wrongfully imprisoned. She launched a claim for damages in the Supreme Court, only to be told that she must prove her innocence of the charges before the claim could proceed.
But the High Court overturned the 91-year precedent that set this requirement, finding that Ms Beckett's guilt or otherwise was not relevant to whether the prosecution was launched maliciously.
Advertisement
‘‘In the event that the appellant is able to prove that her
prosecution ... was instigated or continued maliciously and without
reasonable and probable cause, her recovery in the civil action would
not scandalise the administration of justice,’’ the court said.Ms Beckett’s solicitor, Terry Goldberg, said it was ridiculous for a person in civil proceedings to have to prove their innocence, where there was no such requirement in criminal proceedings.
Ms Beckett would now return to the Supreme Court to make her claim.
‘‘She’s back in the position she was in in 1989 when she was committed for trial,’’ Mr Goldberg said.
