Three issues with the Misconduct in Public Office probe against Andrew
Following the arrest of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor for possible misconduct in public office, both the palace and the government are hoping for a speedy conclusion to the case. There are three main reasons why this is unlikely.
1. Uncertainty of the crime
The crime for which Mountbatten-Windsor is being investigated for misconduct in public office is rather unclear. This complicates the task of the prosecution, who will have to spend more time and effort to understand the elements of the crime and then ensure that they can prove each element.
Misconduct in public office is not regulated by an act of parliament; this is an offense under common law. The public duty (liability) bill (also known as the Hillsborough bill) currently going through parliament aims to give this a legal definition. But this would be too late for any investigation into Mountbatten-Windsor for the common law offense developed by a series of court decisions dating back centuries.
The purpose of crime in the Middle Ages was to catch people who held a trusted public office and did something to betray that trust. It later fell into disuse, but was recently revived to catch corrupt police officers whose abuses (such as selling information to journalists) did not fit easily into established crimes.
appeals court in 2004 He reframed the judge-drafted law for modern times by outlining the four elements of the crime. Must be committed by:
- A public official who acts in this way,
- deliberately abuses himself
- To the extent of abusing the public’s trust in the holder of authority
- without reasonable excuse or justification.
Readers must decide for themselves whether this makes the crime less ambiguous. With careful understatement, Crown Prosecution Service instruction status “Crime needs to be tightly limited and can raise complex and sometimes sensitive issues.”
2. More than one police force was involved
Mountbatten-Windsor was arrested by Thames Valley Police, but they are not the only force investigating revelations in millions of documents in the Epstein files. Mountbatten-Windsor denies any wrongdoing regarding Jeffrey Epstein.
The Metropolitan Police, Essex Police (for flights into and out of Stansted) and Surrey Police are also investigating the claims. Some of these investigations relate to possible trafficking into or out of the United Kingdom for the purpose of sexual exploitation, which, if proven, would be an offense under the Convention. Sexual Offenses Act 2003. The National Police Chiefs’ Council has announced a national group to support its investigative forces.
Police investigations will inevitably take some time. In addition to the size of the Epstein files, police will also want to investigate UK government files as they seek evidence of misconduct in public office.
Mountbatten-Windsor was trade ambassador from 2001 to 2011. Most of the evidence is likely to come from his emails and files from agencies such as UK Trade and Investment and government departments such as the Department for Business (now Business and Trade), the Foreign Office, the Cabinet Office and Number 10. Government record keeping isn’t what it used to be, and records from that long ago will take time to find and produce.
3. Challenges facing the CPS and the courts
If the police have gathered sufficient evidence they will present all evidence to the Crown Prosecution Service. The CPS will also need time to consider whether there is a sufficient case to prosecute for a common law offense whose definition is still vague and complex.
CPS code It states that they will only prosecute an alleged crime if there is a “realistic prospect of conviction”. This means that “a jury properly guided by the law will be more likely not to convict the defendant on the charge.”
About the author
Robert Hazell is Professor of British Politics and Government and founder of the UCL Constitution Unit.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read original article.
The key legal challenges may lie in proving that Mountbatten-Windsor held a public office while serving as trade envoy and that his conduct amounted to an abuse of public trust. In trying to clarify the second test, the appeals court said that the breach of trust “must amount to an insult to the reputation of the public office held.” The threshold is high, requiring conduct so far below acceptable standards that it constitutes an abuse of the public’s trust in the office holder.
The CPS will also need to be in close contact with the team investigating Peter Mandelson, who is under investigation for alleged misconduct in public office over evidence that he passed confidential government information to Epstein. If the police pass a file on Mandelson to the CPS, there will be similarities in terms of evidence and legal challenges in proving misconduct in each case.
It can take a very long time for any hearing to take place. One of the biggest obstacles to a speedy conclusion is the state of the courts. The latest review by retired senior judge Brian Leveson found a backlog of nearly 80,000 cases awaiting trial at the Crown Court last September, with the backlog predicted to reach 100,000 cases by November 2027.
Some defendants have already been told their cases won’t be heard until 2030. Her case, like everyone else’s, may remain on hold to prevent further suggestions that Mountbatten-Windsor is above the law.
