Rex v Whittaker: 1914

The Court was asked whether the defendant, a regimentary colonel accused of receiving bribes in connection with the construction of a canteen, was a ‘public officer’ within the meaning of the relevant legislation.
Held: Lawrence J said: ‘A public officer is an officer who discharges any duty in the discharge of which the public are interested, more clearly so if he is paid out of a fund provided by the public. If taxes go to supply his payment and the public have an interest in the duties he discharges, he is a public officer’.
As to the offence: ‘When an officer has to discharge a public duty in which the public is interested, to bribe that officer to act contrary to his duty is a criminal act. To induce him to show favour or abstain from showing disfavour where an impartial discharge of his duty demands that he should show no favour . . is to induce him to act contrary to his duty; where this is done corruptly it is an indictable misdemeanour at common law.’

Judges:

Lawrence J

Citations:

[1914] 3 KB 1283, 10 Cr App R 245

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Bowden (T) CACD 24-Feb-1995
The defendant, a maintenance manager, was accused of misconduct in public office. He had caused works to be carried out by other employees of the local authority on premises occupied by a friend when such works were not required under the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.414601