scholarly journals Police Misconduct as a Breach of Public trust: the Offence of Misconduct in Public Office

2014 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 89 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cindy Davids ◽  
Marilyn McMahon
Keyword(s):  
Police Officers ◽  
Sexual Exploitation ◽  
Public Trust ◽  
Police Misconduct ◽  
Public Officials ◽  
Public Office ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Common ◽  
Criminal Conduct ◽  
Vulnerable Persons

Until relatively recently, the common law offence of misconduct in public office has been regarded as anachronistic. The offence was perceived to have been supplanted by specific statutory offences that could more appropriately deal with criminal conduct by public officials. However, there has been a revival of the offence with successful prosecutions occurring in Australia, England and Hong Kong. Many of these contemporary cases have involved police officers. Examination of these cases reveals that the circumstances in which misconduct in public office has been identified have been diverse, including the unauthorised disclosure of confidential information, the use of false search warrants and the sexual exploitation of vulnerable persons. In many instances, police officers were charged with other criminal offences in addition to charges relating to misconduct in public office. The matters prosecuted as misconduct in public office typically involved matters that were serious and/or could not be adequately prosecuted as other criminal offences or as breaches of police regulations governing conduct. Consequently, despite the proliferation of statutory criminal offences in the 20th century it appears that there continues to be a place for the offence of misconduct in public office. It criminalises misconduct by police officers that may not be adequately dealt with by other offences and recognises the public trust dimension of wrongdoing by these officials. However, a continuing and fundamental challenge is to determine the appropriate definition and scope of the offence.

Fiduciary Principles and Public Offices

2019 ◽  
pp. 302-322
Author(s):  
Ethan J. Leib ◽  
Stephen R. Galoob
Keyword(s):  
Administrative Law ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Public Institutions ◽  
Policy Implications ◽  
Public Officials ◽  
Public Office ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
Normative Structure ◽  
The Public ◽  
Positive Law

This chapter examines how fiduciary principles apply to public offices, focusing on what it means for officeholders to comport themselves to their respective public roles appropriately. Public law institutions can operate in accordance with fiduciary norms even when they are enforced differently from the remedial mechanisms available in private fiduciary law. In the public sector, fiduciary norms are difficult to enforce directly and the fiduciary norms of public office do not overlap completely with the positive law governing public officials. Nevertheless, core fiduciary principles are at the heart of public officeholding, and public officers need to fulfill their fiduciary role obligations. This chapter first considers three areas of U.S. public law whose fiduciary character reinforces the tenet that public office is a public trust: the U.S. Constitution’s “Emoluments Clauses,” administrative law, and the law of judging. It then explores the fiduciary character of public law by looking at the deeper normative structure of public officeholding, placing emphasis on how public officeholders are constrained by the principles of loyalty, care, deliberation, conscientiousness, and robustness. It also compares the policy implications of the fiduciary view of officeholding with those of Dennis Thompson’s view before concluding with an explanation of how the application of fiduciary principles might differ between public and private law settings and how public institutions might be designed or reformed in light of fiduciary norms.

scholarly journals "The unstoppable psychopathic authority"

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pardis Tabaee Damavandi
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Police Officers ◽  
Personal Experience ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Police Misconduct ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Law ◽  
Opinion Article ◽  
Miscarriage Of Justice

This is an opinion article based on personal experience. There are now at least another two cases involving foreign researchers on national territory and two more cases overseas of an actor and foreign actress too who were dragged into court against each other for miscarriage of justice. Subornation of all witnesses to malicious prosecution should also be addressed. These public humiliations and attempted loss to reputation are deleterious to all members of the public and do not in any way place the police misconduct officer nor a misconduct judge nor a misconduct prosecutor in a superior intellectual position. Real police officers are those who have knowledge of the law in a way that contributes and improves society and thankfully those heroes still exist in other places but unfortunately not in Scotland (UK) and not in some cities overseas. The process of interacting with these people is very exhausting and unhealthy but enlisting third party help should improve the quality of life of victims. Although psychopaths are liked by the majority of individuals, it is only the 'normal' victim who gets to know their true dark nature and this is why support may seem scant initially.

Misconduct in a Public Office—Should it Still Be Prosecuted?

2012 ◽  
Vol 76 (2) ◽  
pp. 179-185 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon Parsons
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Material Damage ◽  
Public Officials ◽  
Public Office ◽  
The Common

This article examines the common law crime of misconduct in a public office from its ancient origins, and considers the difficulties in defining the crime. These difficulties arise from the crime being very widely defined as it includes non-feasance, misfeasance, frauds and deceits, malfeasance and oppression. It is unclear whether these are separate categories or if they run into one another. It is also unclear if the crime is a conduct crime or whether material damage is required. It appears that the DPP requires material damage before a prosecution can take place. The article argues that as the elements of the crime are so uncertain, it should no longer be prosecuted especially in view of the availability of alternative statutory offences which could be charged instead of the misconduct crime. These statutory offences have the certainty which the misconduct crime lacks and they thus enable public officials to judge their future conduct.

Good Policing

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mike Hough
Keyword(s):  
Procedural Justice ◽  
Police Officers ◽  
Crime Control ◽  
Public Trust ◽  
Police Legitimacy ◽  
Justice Theory ◽  
Police Recruits ◽  
The Public ◽  
Police Contacts ◽  
The Law

This book conveys the ideas behind procedural justice theory as they apply to policing. It sets out important but complex ideas in jargon-free language to non-specialist readers with an interest in policing – including serving police officers and police recruits as they embark on a degree-level entry programme into the police service. The book’s main message is that public trust in the police builds police legitimacy, and people comply with the law and cooperate with the police when they see the police as legitimate. It argues that public trust in the police serves as the bedrock of police legitimacy. Procedural justice theory provides an account of the reasons why people obey the law that stresses the importance of fair and respectful treatment of the public, and an alignment between policing practice and people’s moral standards. It provides a narrative about crime control that questions the tough ‘no-nonsense’ solutions that politicians often reach for when crime problems emerge. The book’s main policy recommendations are that policing strategies and tactics should always be assessed against criteria of legitimacy, and that the quality of treatment in police contacts with the public is one of the keys to good policing.

scholarly journals New Zealand’s Public Trust Doctrine

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Nicola Jane Hulley
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Natural Resources ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Coastal Area ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Public Trust ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
The Public ◽  
Public Trust Doctrine ◽  
The Common

<p>This paper presents an argument that there is a public trust doctrine which is part of New Zealand’s common law. The public doctrine imposes an obligation on administrative decision-makers, with respect to decisions that impact commonly held natural resources, to act in the interests of the public. I argue the doctrine was inherited by New Zealand in 1840, as part of the English common law, and that it has been subsequently recognised in the New Zealand common law. I also argue that the doctrine has not been extinguished by the Resource Management Act 1991 or the Marine Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011: the common law doctrine supplements these regulatory regimes. My argument concludes that the doctrine is best conceived of as a ground of judicial review, perhaps under the heading of illegality, and that there are strong normative arguments for its augmentation by common law development or legislative codification.</p>

scholarly journals New Zealand’s Public Trust Doctrine

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Nicola Jane Hulley
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Natural Resources ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Coastal Area ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Public Trust ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
The Public ◽  
Public Trust Doctrine ◽  
The Common

<p>This paper presents an argument that there is a public trust doctrine which is part of New Zealand’s common law. The public doctrine imposes an obligation on administrative decision-makers, with respect to decisions that impact commonly held natural resources, to act in the interests of the public. I argue the doctrine was inherited by New Zealand in 1840, as part of the English common law, and that it has been subsequently recognised in the New Zealand common law. I also argue that the doctrine has not been extinguished by the Resource Management Act 1991 or the Marine Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011: the common law doctrine supplements these regulatory regimes. My argument concludes that the doctrine is best conceived of as a ground of judicial review, perhaps under the heading of illegality, and that there are strong normative arguments for its augmentation by common law development or legislative codification.</p>

The Common Good and Common Ground

2019 ◽  
pp. 34-51
Author(s):  
Jonathan H. Marks
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Common Good ◽  
Common Ground ◽  
Public Officials ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Common Good ◽  
Responsibility Of Government ◽  
Public Health Officials ◽  
The Common

This chapter reviews the related notions of the common good, the public good, and the public interest. Although corporations can contribute to the common good, they are not guardians of the common good. That is the responsibility of government bodies and public officials. There may be reasonable disagreements about how to define and promote the common good. But policymakers should not conflate the commercial interests of powerful industry actors with the common good. Nor should public officials confound the common good and common ground. Finding common ground with industry ordinarily requires public officials to take off the table interventions that might promote the common good. Public health officials should expressly consider ways to promote the public health that may not create benefits for the private sector, and may even be inimical to the interests of industry.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document