Law Report: Council employee guilty of misconduct
Regina v Bowden Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) (Lord Justice Hirst, Mr Justice Hidden and Mr Justice Mitchell) 24 February 1995
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Regina v Bowden Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) (Lord Justice Hirst, Mr Justice Hidden and Mr Justice Mitchell) 24 February 1995
The common law offence of misconduct in public office is not limited to officers or agents of the Crown but applies also to local authority employees.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's appeal against conviction of misconduct in a public office.
The appellant was employed by the Stoke-on-Trent City Council as the miscellaneous maintenance manager of the city works department, the council's direct labour organisation. He was convicted of dishonestly causing, when a holder of public office, work to be carried out at premises when those works were not required under the council's policy. The premises were let to the appellant's lady friend.
Anthony Barker QC (Registrar of Criminal Appeals) for the appellant; James Burbridge (CPS) for the Crown.
LORD JUSTICE HIRST said that the theme which ran through the cases over the past 200 years was that a "man accepting an office of trust concerning the public is answerable criminally to the King for misbehaviour in his office".
Henly v The Mayor and Burgesses of Lyme (1828) 5 Bing 91, although a civil case, correctly defined a public office as embracing "everyone who is appointed to discharge a public duty, and receives compensation in whatever shape, whether from the Crown or otherwise". No case limited the offence to officers or agents of the Crown.
The appellant was accountable for the receipt and disbursement of public money derived by the council either from rates or from central government grants. His salary was paid from the same public funds. He fell within the definition of public officer laid down in the authorities. The submission that his position was too lowly to qualify was no
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments