Malfeasance in office

Last updated

Malfeasance in office is any unlawful conduct that is often grounds for a just cause removal of an elected official by statute or recall election, or even additionally a crime. [1] [ citation needed ] Malfeasance in office contrasts with "misfeasance in office", which is the commission of a lawful act, done in an official capacity, that improperly causes harm; and "nonfeasance in office", which is the failure to perform an official duty.

Contents

An exact definition of malfeasance in office is difficult: many highly regarded secondary sources (such as books and commentaries) compete over its established elements based on reported cases. This confusion has arisen from the courts where no single consensus definition has arisen from the relatively few reported appeal-level cases involving malfeasance in office.

England and Wales

Under English law, misconductin public office is a criminal offence at common law that dates back to the 13th century. [2] [3]

The offence carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. It is confined to those who are public office holders, and is committed when the office holder acts (or neglects to act) in a way that constitutes a breach of the duties of that office. Case law has established a broad definition of "public office holder" for this purpose that does not depend on the person holding a formal "office" as such, nor on being paid out of the public purse, though a government employee is more likely to be found to fall into the definition. [2]

The Crown Prosecution Service guidelines [2] on this offence set out the components of the offence as summarised by the Court of Appeal: [4]

  1. a public officer acting as such
  2. wilfully neglects to perform their duty and/or wilfully misconducts themself
  3. to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public's trust in the office holder [5]
  4. without reasonable excuse or justification.

Those deemed public officers include civil servants, magistrates, judges, elected politicians (such as MPs and councillors), prison staff, police officers (including police community support officers and some police staff), but not (according to a 2014 case) [6] NHS staff such as paramedics or ambulance staff. [7] Someone can be acting as a public officer even if their employer is a private company delivering a public service. [8] The public officer must be "acting as such"—the power they are misusing must arise from their public office. [9]

A similar statutory offence exists under section 26 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 for those who improperly or corruptly use the powers or privileges they have as police officers. [2]

The similarly-named misfeasance in public office is a tort. [10] [11] In the House of Lords judgement in the BCCI case, it was held that this had three essential elements: [12]

  1. The defendant must be a public officer;
  2. The defendant must have been exercising his power as a public officer;
  3. The defendant is either exercising targeted malice or exceeding his powers.

Potential reform

In December 2020, the Law Commission issued a report recommending the common law offence of misconduct in public office be abolished, and replaced with two new statutory offences; one of 'corruption in public office' and another of 'breach of duty in public office'. [13] As of 2024, the government has not issued a response to the report. [14]

United States

The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals summarized a number of the definitions of malfeasance in office applied by various appellate courts in the United States.

Malfeasance has been defined by appellate courts in other jurisdictions as a wrongful act which the actor has no legal right to do; as any wrongful conduct which affects, interrupts or interferes with the performance of official duty; as an act for which there is no authority or warrant of law; as an act which a person ought not to do; as an act which is wholly wrongful and unlawful; as that which an officer has no authority to do and is positively wrong or unlawful; and as the unjust performance of some act which the party performing it has no right, or has contracted not, to do.

— Daugherty v. Ellis, 142 W. Va. 340, 357-8, 97 S.E.2d 33, 42-3 (W. Va. 1956) (internal citations omitted).

The court then went on to use yet another definition, "malfeasance is the doing of an act which an officer had no legal right to do at all and that when an officer, through ignorance, inattention, or malice, does that which they have no legal right to do at all, or acts without any authority whatsoever, or exceeds, ignores, or abuses their powers, they are guilty of malfeasance."

Nevertheless, a few "elements" can be distilled from those cases. First, malfeasance in office requires an affirmative act or omission. Second, the act must have been done in an official capacity—under the color of office. Finally, that that act somehow interferes with the performance of official duties—though some debate remains about "whose official" duties.

In addition, jurisdictions differ greatly over whether intent or knowledge is necessary. As noted above, many courts will find malfeasance in office where there is "ignorance, inattention, or malice", which implies no intent or knowledge is required.

See also

Notes and references

  1. ↑ "2011 Louisiana Laws :: Revised Statutes :: TITLE 14 — Criminal law :: RS 14:134 — Malfeasance in office". Justia Law. Retrieved 2020-05-25.
  2. 1 2 3 4 "Misconduct in Public Office" (legal guidance). Crown Prosecution Service. Retrieved 31 August 2024.
  3. ↑ "Nick Clegg says journalists tried for paying public officials should have clearer public interest defence in law". Press Gazette. 30 March 2015. Retrieved 31 March 2015.
  4. ↑ Attorney General's Reference No. 3 of 2003 [2004] EWCA Crim 868 , [2005] QB 73, [2004] 3 WLR 451, [2005] 4 All ER 303, [2004] 2 Cr App Rep 23, [2004] 2 Cr App R 23(7 April 2004)
  5. ↑ In the decision not to prosecute Archived 2016-03-03 at the Wayback Machine Damian Green, the Director of Public Prosecutions, formulated this as "the breach must have been such a serious departure from acceptable standards as to constitute a criminal offence; and to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public's trust in the public official"; citing the Court of Appeal in the case of Attorney General's Reference No. 3 of 2003 [2004] EWCA Crim 868.
  6. ↑ R v Mitchell [2014] EWCA Crim 318 , [2014] 2 Cr App R 2(12 February 2014)
  7. ↑ David Ormerod; David Perry, eds. (2023). Blackstone’s Criminal Practice 2024 (34 ed.). Oxford University Press. B15.27. ISBN   9780198892489.
  8. ↑ R v Cosford & Others [2013] EWCA Crim 466 at para. 37, [2014] QB 81, [2014] 1 QB 81, [2013] 3 WLR 1064, [2013] 3 All ER 649, [2013] 2 Cr App R 8, [2013] WLR(D) 147(16 April 2013)
  9. ↑ Johnson v Westminster Magistrates' Court [2019] EWHC 1709(Admin) , [2019] WLR 6238, [2019] 1 WLR 6238, [2020] 2 All ER 271, [2019] WLR(D) 391, [2019] 2 Cr App R 30, [2020] Crim LR 458, [2019] ACD 94(3 July 2019)
  10. ↑ Murphy, John (2012-03-01). "Misfeasance in a Public Office: A Tort Law Misfit?". Oxford Journal of Legal Studies. 32 (1): 51–75. doi:10.1093/ojls/gqr018. ISSN   1464-3820 . Retrieved 2024-10-08.
  11. ↑ Jackson, Rupert M.; Powell, John L. (2022). Jackson & Powell on Professional Liability. The Common Law Library (9 ed.). London: Sweet & Maxwell. 15-035. ISBN   978-0-414-09040-8.
  12. ↑ House of Lords judgements Archived 2006-03-13 at the Wayback Machine on Three Rivers District Council and Others v The Governor and Company of The Bank of England
  13. ↑ Misconduct in public office (PDF) (Report). Law Commission. 4 December 2020. p. 10. ISBN   978-1-5286-2279-0 . Retrieved 21 September 2024.
  14. ↑ "Misconduct in Public Office". lawcom.gov.uk. Law Commission . Retrieved 21 September 2024. It is now time for the Government to review and consider the recommendations in our final report. We await an interim response.

Related Research Articles

The defence of property is a common method of justification used by defendants who argue that they should not be held liable for any loss and injury that they have caused because they were acting to protect their property.

In criminal law, criminal negligence is an offence that involves a breach of an objective standard of behaviour expected of a defendant. It may be contrasted with strictly liable offences, which do not consider states of mind in determining criminal liability, or offenses that requires mens rea, a mental state of guilt.

Assault occasioning grievous bodily harm is a term used in English criminal law to describe the severest forms of battery. It refers to two offences that are created by sections 18 and 20 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861. The distinction between these two sections is the requirement of specific intent for section 18; the offence under section 18 is variously referred to as "wounding with intent" or "causing grievous bodily harm with intent", whereas the offence under section 20 is variously referred to as "unlawful wounding", "malicious wounding" or "inflicting grievous bodily harm".

In Canada and England and Wales, certain convicted persons may be designated as dangerous offenders and subject to a longer, or indefinite, term of imprisonment in order to protect the public. Dangerousness in law is a legal establishment of the risk that a person poses to cause harm. Other countries, including Denmark, Norway, and parts of the United States have similar provisions of law.

In English criminal law, public nuisance is an act, condition or thing that is illegal because it interferes with the rights of the general public.

In criminal law, incitement is the encouragement of another person to commit a crime. Depending on the jurisdiction, some or all types of incitement may be illegal. Where illegal, it is known as an inchoate offense, where harm is intended but may or may not have actually occurred.

In criminal law, a mistake of fact may sometimes mean that, while a person has committed the physical element of an offence, because they were labouring under a mistake of fact, they never formed the mental element. This is unlike a mistake of law, which is not usually a defense; law enforcement may or may not take for granted that individuals know what the law is.

Assault occasioning actual bodily harm is a statutory offence of aggravated assault in England and Wales, Northern Ireland, the Australian Capital Territory, New South Wales, Hong Kong and the Solomon Islands. It has been abolished in the Republic of Ireland and in South Australia, but replaced with a similar offence.

In criminal law and in the law of tort, recklessness may be defined as the state of mind where a person deliberately and unjustifiably pursues a course of action while consciously disregarding any risks flowing from such action. Recklessness is less culpable than malice, but is more blameworthy than carelessness.

Murder is an offence under the common law legal system of England and Wales. It is considered the most serious form of homicide, in which one person kills another with the intention to unlawfully cause either death or serious injury. The element of intentionality was originally termed malice aforethought, although it required neither malice nor premeditation. Baker states that many killings done with a high degree of subjective recklessness were treated as murder from the 12th century right through until the 1974 decision in DPP v Hyam.

Duress in English law is a complete common law defence, operating in favour of those who commit crimes because they are forced or compelled to do so by the circumstances, or the threats of another. The doctrine arises not only in criminal law but also in civil law, where it is relevant to contract law and trusts law.

In the English law of homicide, manslaughter is a less serious offence than murder, the differential being between levels of fault based on the mens rea or by reason of a partial defence. In England and Wales, a common practice is to prefer a charge of murder, with the judge or defence able to introduce manslaughter as an option. The jury then decides whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty of either murder or manslaughter. On conviction for manslaughter, sentencing is at the judge's discretion, whereas a sentence of life imprisonment is mandatory on conviction for murder. Manslaughter may be either voluntary or involuntary, depending on whether the accused has the required mens rea for murder.

Conspiracy to defraud is an offence under the common law of England and Wales and Northern Ireland.

Obtaining pecuniary advantage by deception was formerly a statutory offence in England and Wales and Northern Ireland. It was replaced with the more general offence of fraud by the Fraud Act 2006. The offence still exists in certain other common law jurisdictions which have copied the English criminal model.

An offensive weapon is a tool made, adapted or intended for the purpose of inflicting physical injury upon another person.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">English criminal law</span> Legal system of England and Wales relating to crime

English criminal law concerns offences, their prevention and the consequences, in England and Wales. Criminal conduct is considered to be a wrong against the whole of a community, rather than just the private individuals affected. The state, in addition to certain international organisations, has responsibility for crime prevention, for bringing the culprits to justice, and for dealing with convicted offenders. The police, the criminal courts and prisons are all publicly funded services, though the main focus of criminal law concerns the role of the courts, how they apply criminal statutes and common law, and why some forms of behaviour are considered criminal. The fundamentals of a crime are a guilty act and a guilty mental state. The traditional view is that moral culpability requires that a defendant should have recognised or intended that they were acting wrongly, although in modern regulation a large number of offences relating to road traffic, environmental damage, financial services and corporations, create strict liability that can be proven simply by the guilty act.

The right to silence in England and Wales is the protection given to a person during criminal proceedings from adverse consequences of remaining silent. It is sometimes referred to as the privilege against self-incrimination. It is used on any occasion when it is considered the person being spoken to is under suspicion of having committed one or more criminal offences and consequently thus potentially being subject to criminal proceedings.

Obtaining property by deception was formerly a statutory offence in England and Wales and Northern Ireland.

Rape is a statutory offence in England and Wales. The offence is created by section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003:

(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—

(2) Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.
(3) Sections 75 and 76 apply to an offence under this section.

(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.

Outraging public decency is a common law offence in England and Wales, Hong Kong and the Australian states of New South Wales and Victoria.

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.