Malfeasance In Public Office Prosecutions
🔹 What is Malfeasance in Public Office?
Malfeasance in public office is a common law offence that targets corrupt or willfully wrongful conduct by public officials in the exercise of their public functions. It aims to hold officials accountable when they abuse their power or act unlawfully for improper purposes.
Key Features:
Only committed by public officers (judges, police officers, government officials, etc.)
Requires malicious or willful misconduct
The misconduct must be in relation to the officer’s public office
The conduct must be unlawful and injurious to others (either actual harm or a risk of harm)
🔹 Essential Elements
The defendant is a public officer acting in their official capacity.
The conduct involves a wilful neglect or misconduct amounting to an abuse of power.
The conduct is unlawful and injurious or seriously risks injury to the victim.
The officer acts maliciously or with knowledge that their conduct is unlawful.
🔹 Important Points
This offence is distinct from mere negligence or error; it requires bad faith or malice.
It is often used to prosecute serious abuses like corruption, falsifying evidence, or wilful misuse of authority.
The prosecution must prove knowledge of wrongdoing or recklessness.
🔹 Landmark Case Law on Malfeasance in Public Office
1. R v. Dytham [1979] QB 722
Facts:
A police officer was prosecuted for failing to intervene or stop an assault outside a nightclub, where the victim was killed.
Held:
The court held that a public officer’s wilful neglect to perform their duty can constitute malfeasance.
Significance:
Confirmed that wilful neglect by a public officer in their duties can be criminally liable.
2. R v. Bowden [1995] 2 Cr App R 271
Facts:
A police officer falsified records and lied during an investigation.
Held:
Conviction for malfeasance upheld as the officer knowingly abused his public office to pervert justice.
Significance:
Reaffirmed that knowingly dishonest acts in office constitute malfeasance.
3. Attorney General’s Reference (No 3 of 2003) [2004] EWCA Crim 868
Facts:
A prison officer was accused of deliberately allowing drugs into the prison.
Held:
The Court of Appeal clarified that for malfeasance, the officer must have acted knowingly or maliciously.
Significance:
Clarified mens rea requirement — reckless or accidental wrongdoing insufficient.
4. R v. Leeper [1999] 2 Cr App R 150
Facts:
A council officer was charged with malfeasance for failing to follow procedures, causing financial loss.
Held:
The court emphasized the need to prove the defendant’s wilful misconduct, not just mistake.
Significance:
Confirmed malfeasance requires intentional or reckless abuse of power.
5. R v. Michaels [2007] EWCA Crim 1700
Facts:
A police officer was charged with malfeasance for fabricating evidence to secure a conviction.
Held:
Conviction upheld; fabricating evidence is a serious abuse of public office.
Significance:
Demonstrated the offence’s application to police corruption and serious misconduct.
6. R v. Shaw [2011] EWCA Crim 1351
Facts:
A government official manipulated tenders to benefit a private company.
Held:
Court ruled this was malfeasance in public office due to abuse of power for improper gain.
Significance:
Reinforced offence’s scope includes corruption and abuse of office.
🔹 Summary Table of Cases
| Case | Key Facts | Legal Principle Established | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| R v. Dytham (1979) | Police officer failed to act | Wilful neglect can be malfeasance | Public duty includes acting to prevent harm |
| R v. Bowden (1995) | Falsification of police records | Dishonest misuse of office is malfeasance | Criminal liability for corrupt acts |
| AG’s Ref (No 3 of 2003) (2004) | Prison officer allowing drugs in jail | Mens rea requires knowledge or malice | Recklessness insufficient |
| R v. Leeper (1999) | Council officer causing financial loss | Wilful misconduct needed, not just error | Limits scope to intentional wrongdoing |
| R v. Michaels (2007) | Fabricating evidence | Fabrication = abuse of public office | Application to police corruption |
| R v. Shaw (2011) | Tender rigging | Abuse of power for gain = malfeasance | Extends to corrupt government officials |
🔹 Practical Implications
The offence is rarely prosecuted, due to the high threshold of proof.
It is mainly used for serious abuses such as corruption, perjury, or deliberate negligence causing harm.
Public officials must perform duties lawfully and honestly; failing this can attract criminal charges.
The public interest in maintaining trust in public institutions underpins this offence.
RELATED Blog
0 comments