The appellants, female prison workers, appealed against their convictions for misconduct in public office having been found to have engaged in sexual activity with male prisoners.
Held: The appeals were dismissed: ‘Nothing in the authorities justifies the conclusion that the ‘strict confinement’ should be to the position held by whomsoever is carrying out the duty: rather, it should be addressed to the nature of the duty undertaken and, in particular, whether it is a public duty in the sense that it represents the fulfilment of one of the responsibilities of government such that the public have a significant interest in its discharge extending beyond an interest in anyone who might be directly affected by a serious failure in the performance of the duty. This is consistent with Lord Mansfield’s observation in Bembridge referring to ‘an office of trust concerning the public.”
Judges:
Levesen LJ, Mitting, Males JJ
Citations:
[2013] EWCA Crim 466, [2013] 3 WLR 1064, [2013] 2 Cr App R 8
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Benbridge 1783
Lord Mansfield said that: ‘a man accepting an office of trust concerning the public, especially if attended with profit, is answerable criminally to the King for misbehaviour in his office; this is true, by whomever and in whatever way the officer . .
Cited by:
Cited – Mitchell, Regina v CACD 12-Feb-2014
‘Is a paramedic employed by a National Health Service Trust in its ambulance service the holder of a public office so as to be subject to criminal sanction for misconduct?’
Held: The appeal succeeded; he was not: ‘the nature of the duty . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime
Updated: 17 November 2022; Ref: scu.472640