The appellant had been convicted of encouraging a police officer to commit the offence of misconduct in public office by paying him for stories for the Sun newspaper.
Held: The appeal succeeded: ‘more detailed instruction as to the factors relevant to the question of the public interest were required on the facts of this case so that the jury could weigh carefully the seriousness of the breach. As part and parcel of that direction, the jury should have been directed to consider whether the information passed was so trivial or inconsequential that the public interest could not, in the particular circumstances of the case, be harmed. The reference to ‘confidential information’ in . . the written directions for the jury . . was potentially misleading: it should either have been removed or further explained. The written directions also placed the issue of ‘reasonable excuse or justification’ as part of the second element from Chapman, as if consideration of that factor was not relevant to the last element.’
Hallett VP LJ, King, Dove JJ
[2016] EWCA Crim 1588
Bailii
England and Wales
Crime
Updated: 24 January 2022; Ref: scu.570556
