What is the difference between malicious prosecution and false imprisonment?

G.H.L. Fridman, The Law of Torts (supra) comments on the differences between the tort of malicious prosecution and false imprisonment as follows, at p. 846: The tort of malicious prosecution must be distinguished from false imprisonment or false arrest. The former is concerned with the bringing of a false charge against the plaintiff, thereby setting the criminal process in motion and involving the plaintiff in an actual trial or the risk of a trial. The latter is a tort committed when the defendant personally seizes the plaintiff and puts him under restraint, with a view to subsequent criminal proceedings, or achieves the same result by employing the services of a police officer. In Austin v. Dowling [(1870), L.R. 5 C.P. 534 at 540] Willes J. explained the distinction in a classic statement that has been referred to and relied on by Canadian judges. The distinction between false imprisonment and malicious prosecution is well illustrated by the case where, parties being before a magistrate, one makes a charge against another, whereupon a magistrate orders, the person charged to be taken into custody and detained until the matter can be investigated. The party making the charge is not liable to an action for false imprisonment, because he does not set a ministerial officer in motion, but a judicial officer. The opinion and judgment of a judicial officer interposed between the charge and the imprisonment. (5) Rules of Pleading