Malice in Law and Malice in Fact
1. Malice in Fact (Actual Malice)
Definition:
Malice in fact refers to a deliberate intention to cause harm to someone.
It must be proved with evidence that the person acted with an evil motive, spite, ill-will, or hatred.
Key Characteristics:
Subjective: The court looks into the actual state of mind of the defendant.
Must be proved as a matter of fact.
Evidence-based: Requires showing the presence of bad motive or intention.
Example Scenarios:
A person deliberately spreading false rumors to ruin someone's reputation.
Filing a false criminal complaint out of vengeance.
Case Law:
🔹 Shearer v. Shields (1914)
Facts: A false and malicious report was made to the police, resulting in the arrest of an innocent person.
Held: The court held that actual malice was present since the complaint was made out of spite.
Importance: Demonstrated the requirement of proving ill-will or a wrongful motive for malice in fact.
🔹 Bromage v. Prosser (1825)
Though this case is often cited for distinguishing the two types of malice, it also involved malice in fact, where the plaintiff attempted to show actual ill-will in a defamatory publication.
2. Malice in Law (Legal Malice)
Definition:
Malice in law refers to a wrongful act done intentionally without just cause or excuse, even if there is no personal ill-will or evil motive.
The law imputes malice to the act because of its unjustified nature.
Key Characteristics:
Objective: It is inferred from the nature of the act.
No need to prove actual motive.
Often arises when someone abuses legal rights or authority for improper purposes.
Example Scenarios:
A public official denying someone a license or benefit out of arbitrary reasons.
Filing a civil suit without legal basis and with an improper purpose.
Case Law:
🔹 Bradford Corporation v. Pickles (1895)
Facts: The defendant deliberately interfered with the flow of water to the plaintiff’s reservoir, not for any benefit to himself, but to force the sale of land.
Held: Even though there was bad motive, the act was legally permissible. This case shows the limits of malice in law — bad motive does not make a lawful act unlawful.
Importance: Helped distinguish that malice in law must involve a wrongful act, not just wrongful intent.
🔹 Somerset County Council v. Smith (1895)
Held: Malice in law does not require a spiteful motive — if the act is wrongful and without lawful justification, malice is implied.
🔹 Ashby v. White (1703)
Facts: A returning officer wrongfully prevented a man from voting.
Held: Although there may not have been actual ill-will, the wrongful act of refusing a legal right implied malice in law.
Importance: Demonstrates malice in law through wrongful interference with a legal right.
Comparative Table
| Feature | Malice in Fact | Malice in Law |
|---|---|---|
| Also called | Actual Malice | Implied Malice |
| Nature | Subjective (based on intent) | Objective (based on act) |
| Requires proof of motive? | Yes, must prove ill-will/spite/hatred | No, motive irrelevant if act is wrongful |
| Evidence needed | Yes – direct or circumstantial | No – inferred from unjustified act |
| Commonly seen in | Defamation, Malicious Prosecution | Abuse of Power, Administrative Decisions |
Conclusion
Malice in fact focuses on the state of mind: Did the person act with evil intent?
Malice in law focuses on the wrongful nature of the act: Was the act unjustified, regardless of intent?
Understanding this distinction is essential in many legal contexts — especially in tort and administrative law — as it determines the threshold of liability and the burden of proof required.
RELATED Blog
0 comments