Skip to main content

Misconduct in public office

Journalists were prosecuted for aiding and abetting misconduct in public office
by inducing police officers to leak information

The Law Commission has announced a review into the law on misconduct in public office saying that the offence is too vague.  In particular, the Commission says that the terms “public office” and “misconduct” are not well defined, which makes it difficult to know who is or is not in a public office and what conduct is or is not misconduct.

This report appears to have been inspired by a number of failed prosecutions of journalists for aiding and abetting misconduct in public office.

What does the law say?


We will take this question in stages, working through the definition of the offence as it currently stands to see how clear (or murky) this offence really is.

Misconduct in judicial or public office is a judge-made crime, meaning that it was not created by any Act of Parliament and so is defined wholly according to cases that have come before the courts over the years.

The leading case is the AG’s Reference (No. 3 or 2003), in which Pill, LJ gave judgment stating that the offence is committed when:
1.       A public officer, acting as such;
2.       Wilfully neglects to perform his duty and/or wilfully misconducts himself;
3.       To such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust in the office holder;
4.       Without reasonable excuse or justification.

Who is a public officer?


The court went on to say that a public officer is somebody who has a duty to fulfil one of the responsibilities of government to the extent that the public at large would have a significant interest in its proper discharge.  This does not require the person to be paid for holding his position, which clearly encompasses lay magistrates and special police constables.  In R v Mitchell (William), the court of appeal concluded that a paramedic is not a public officer because he owes duty to the individual patient and while the public at large may be concerned at the breach of a duty to an individual that is not the same as a general duty to the public.  Contrast that with the duty of a police officer or judge whose roles are to serve everybody not any particular individual.

What counts a misconduct and an abuse of the public’s trust?


A few things are obvious from the wording in AG’s Reference (No. 3 or 2003), first this must be a wilful failure to act or a wilful misconduct – so that would appear to exclude any mistakes or inaction where the office holder did not know there was a duty for him to act.

In AG’s Reference (No. 3 or 2003), Pill, LJ made clear that the threshold for an act to cross from the merely ill-advised into the realm of misconduct would be a high one.  To decide whether an act of omission is sufficiently serious, it is necessary to consider three things: i. the responsibility of the office and its holder; ii. the importance of the public objectives they serve; and iii; the extent and nature of the departure from those objectives.

The linked cases of R v Chapman and R v Sabey, told us that a breach of trust by an employee against their employer is insufficient.  So, a situation in which a PC relays to a journalist information intended to remain confidential within a police investigation, such as information given to him during a briefing, is unlikely to be an act serious enough to amount to a crime. 

Chapman and Sabey, are really concerned with what the jury should be told by the trial judge, i.e. what directions they should be given, but this does a lot to give us an idea of the correct position in law.  The jury should be told to consider whether the misconduct was sufficient serious so that it could amount to an abuse of the public’s trust.  In deciding this, the jury should consider whether the act of the defendant had the effect of harming the public interest.  If it did not, then no crime was committed.

This is called a fudge.  Whenever I imagine their Lordships sitting down to draft a judgment like this, I can’t help but picture them feasting on warm sticky chocolate fudge puddings – maybe accidentally pushing a finger through and getting the sticky fudge stuck to their fingers and that spilling over into their judgment.  Why do I imagine that?  It’s because this is one of those areas where they’ve thought to themselves, “this is way too hard to define… we’ll leave it to the jury”.  In a lot of cases, that’s a perfectly proper thing to do because so much can turn on the individual facts of a case so maybe we’ll let them off this once.

What the Hell does “without reasonable excuse or justification” mean?


This is one of those rare occasions in which I find myself in slight disagreement with their Lordships and wondering what they were thinking when they considered this point.  In R v L(D), the Court of Appeal found itself confused as to whether “without reasonable excuse or justification” is actually an ingredient of the offence and, if so, what it means.  Leveson, LJ said, “the words ‘without justification or reasonable excuse’ only served as an expansion of the word ‘culpably’… it would have been appropriate for the judge to explain that the phrase “without justification or reasonable excuse” meant no more than acting culpably or in a blameworthy fashion.”

The words “without reasonable excuse” are also found in section 7(6) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 when they said, “A person who, without reasonable excuse, fails to provide a specimen when required to do so in pursuance of this section is guilty of an offence.”  In motoring law, a defendant who wants to rely on a reasonable excuse must raise it as a defence but it is then for the Crown to disprove so that the court is sure

To my mind, it is difficult to see how “without reasonable excuse” could be simply an expansion of the word “culpably”.  It is, in my opinion at least, clearly a defence to the allegation.  Albeit, one that when raised the Crown must negative to prove their case.

Conclusion



So, should the law be amended and if yes, then how?  Well those are questions for cleverer people than me.  Certainly, I can see why the Crown Prosecution Service might want to clarity as to who is a public officer but I wonder whether a prescriptive list might not lead to some perverse decision in the future where somebody who looks to all the world like a public officer cannot be prosecuted because his job ain’t on the list.  Although the current law fudges the question of the degree of the abuse of the public’s trust I also cannot see Parliament putting in place a better system than leaving the question to the jury – we are, after all, members of the public whose trust the Crown says has been abused.  There may well be scope for clarifying what is or is not a defence to the allegation, although as we saw in the Road Traffic Act, Parliament was not keen on setting out a test to be applied and left the question to the courts.

Comments

  1. The recent case of Bishop Peter Ball included legal argument over whether bishops of the Church of England are public officers, I was surprised that this wasn't something that was already settled in law.

    The decision made it possible to convict Ball for misconduct relating to predatory but non-coercive sexual behaviour against young men; I wonder if the CPS might have found it more difficult had he been a religious leader in some other group.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Do you have knowledge whether any Justices of the Peace have been convicted under this heading?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Given almost everyone convicted of this offence seems to be a police officer it would make sense to put a specific offence for police officers on the statute books. There are rarely examples of other office holders being convicted so the common law offence should be abolished. A police officer shags a woman on duty and it's off to Crown Court and 12 months in the slammer. An MP does it and there's not even talk of charging them.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ched Evans

Before I begin, I will say that at around 4,500 words this is probably the longest blog I’ve ever posted but I think it’s all necessary to set the scene for this case and explain the background that has been largely ignored or airbrushed in the press. Despite its length, I have not attempted to include every little detail of either fact or law but have done my best to provide a balanced picture of the Ched Evans case, what happened and why the courts reached the decisions they did. There has been so much written about the Ched Evans case over the past weekend, much of it based on a very shaky grasp of the facts and law, that I decided I would read up about the case and weigh in (hopefully on a slightly firmer footing than most of the articles I’ve read so far).

Broadly speaking there seem to be three groups who have opinions on the case:
1.Sexual violence groups (including people describing themselves as “radical feminists”) who appear to take the view that the case is awful, the Court o…

How do the police decide whether to charge a suspect?

A question I’m often asked by clients (and in a roundabout way by people arriving at this blog using searches that ask the question in a variety of ways), is “how do the police decide whether to charge or take no further action (NFA)?”
What are the options?
Let’s have a quick think about what options are available to the police at the end of an investigation.
First, they can charge or report you for summons to attend court.  Charging means that you are given police bail and are required to attend court in person.  A summons is an order from the court for you to attend or for you to send a solicitor on your behalf.  In many cases where a person is summonsed, the court will allow you the option of entering a plea by post.
Second, you may be given a caution.  These can be a simple caution, which on the face of it is a warning not to be naughty in future, or it can be a conditional caution.  Conditions could include a requirement to pay for the cost of damage or compensation, etc.  Either…

Bid to prevent defendants knowing who accuses them of a crime

When I read The Trial by Kafka and Nineteen Eighty-Four by Orwell, I took them as warnings of how a bad justice system wrecks lives of those caught up in it. Sadly, some Members of Parliament and the House of Lords seem to view the books more as a guide to how they would like our Criminal Justice System to run. Today, I read of plans to hide the names of accusers and witnesses from defendants in a large number of cases. Victims of sexual offences, such as rape, have had the right to lifelong anonymity for many years now. This means that it is a criminal offence to publish information that will lead to a complainant being identified. A Bill currently being considered by Parliament would extend that anonymity to bar defendants and their lawyers knowing the name of the person accusing them. This would apply not only in sexual offences, as has been reported in the press, but also in violent offences.
The anonymity currently offered to victims of sexual offences is not total, the complainant…