In england-and-wales, Mark's claim is likely to fail. There are several overlapping principles, which are different rules of law but which all point to the same outcome:
"It is a rule of law and a manifestation of public policy that a civil court will not award
damages to compensate a claimant for a disadvantage which the criminal courts have
imposed on him or her by way of punishment for a criminal act for which he or she was
"A collateral attack on a subsisting conviction and sentence is an abuse of process and
will be struck out pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)(6)."
"It would be incoherent if the civil law produced a result which was inconsistent with
the verdict and punishment imposed by the criminal law; it could not condone
illegality by giving with one hand what it had taken with the other."
(Lord Justice Coulson in Day v Womble Bond Dickinson  EWCA Civ 447 at paragraphs 28, 35 and 41.)
In the Day case, the appellant was convicted of cutting down trees in a protected woodland, for which he was fined £450k and about the same again in costs. He then tried to bring an action against his own solicitors for negligence and breach of contract, but his claim was struck out by the civil judge at first instance, on the grounds described above; and the Court of Appeal agreed. The main point was that the criminal courts had already assessed Day's degree of culpability, and the right way for him to challenge that was through the criminal appeals process, rather than trying to get a civil court to undermine the determination. An award of damages would have the effect of reversing the imposition of a fine by the criminal court, and in general could run counter to its findings as to the defendant's "very considerable" level of responsibility for his actions. (The Court of Appeal did allow one ground of appeal in relation to increased costs owing to the respondents' alleged negligence, but not the core argument.)
Suppose that the facts were different, and the claimant was suing somebody who had advised him to cut down the trees, on the grounds that they'd known the trees were protected and wanted him to get in trouble. This is the kind of thing which could have been mentioned in the criminal proceedings. If the criminal courts had taken all the information into account, but nonetheless found the claimant guilty, then the doctrines mentioned above would still apply, per the various high authorities cited in Day, principally Gray v Thames Trains Ltd  UKHL 33. Notably, the judges in Gray considered a range of scenarios, such as people who commit offences while mentally impaired due to the actions of another, and still decided that the coherence of the civil and criminal law was paramount. A provision of the criminal law whereby someone could be found guilty even without criminal intent is in the same category. It is not for the civil courts to decide that the criminal courts were wrong to apply such a law.