Bob runs a shop, and every week or so he catches a shoplifter and dutifully lays the information before his local magistrate court to prosecute them each time of thousands within the week.
One time a customer, Cassandra, has an awful time in Bob’s shop, and Bob spits on her while shouting all manner of abusive sexist invectives at her.
She writes to Bob complaining of his hateful conduct toward her the prior week, explaining how it upset and impacted her so, asking him for an explanation for his tirades and abuse, and insinuating that she may be weighing civil legal action against Bob for his sexist harassment.
Bob, embarrassed and apparently backed into quite the humiliated spot, apparently spends a couple of days trawling through all of the security footage that he has from the last 6 months trying to find something he might have of Cassandra committing a crime, and manages to find a clip of her running a red light at the junction outside his shop just before arriving one day 5 months ago, still leaving a whole month for the summary only offence to be laid at Magistrates’.
Bob writes back to Cassandra advising her that he has found footage of her running the red light on his camera systems back in May, and is looking into prosecuting her for it.
While one may wonder as to the supposable purpose of the “warning” letter, irrespective of the preliminary threat, can the apparently unsavoury ulterior motives of Bob in prosecuting the offence be used to cast doubt on the ultimate merits of his charges laid against Cassandra?
Is this an illustration of “malicious prosecution”? If not, then what is that?