Misconduct in a public office
Misconduct in a public office is the most likely crime that Tony Blair could be tried for if charges were to be bought against him.
The offence is extremely serious and carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. It is committed when:
a public officer acting as such;
wilfully neglects to perform his duty and/or wilfully misconducts himself;
to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust in the office holder;
without reasonable excuse or justification.
It is important to note that poor political judgement is not considered misfeasance; Therefore, for Mr Blair to be liable, an actual abuse of the public’s trust would need to be shown. I recall hundreds of thousands of people marching through the streets of London shouting in unison “not in our name” will happily tell you that their trust in the rule of law and our system of governance has been seriously and quite violently abused by the actions of Mr Blair and others.
The former Director of Public Prosecutions, Lord MacDonald QC, believes Tony Blair’s conduct in the build-up to the Iraq war could amount to misconduct in public office.
In an article in The Times, he gave this example:
It [an example of the misconduct] occurred about a week before the war and days before the final legal advice of 17th March 2003 from the then Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith.
Through his official, David Brummell, the attorney general informed Mr Blair that it “was an essential part of the legal basis for military action without a further resolution of the Security Council that there is strong evidence that Iraq has failed to comply with and co-operate fully in the implementation of resolution 1441”.
Lord Macdonald said: “Yet, without seeking any advice whatsoever, or calling for any evidence to determine whether this critical condition was met, Mr Blair simply expressed ‘the unequivocal view’ that such further breaches had indeed occurred.”
Mr Blair’s defence is likely to be that Saddam Hussain posed such an immediate threat that action had to be taken. There is no doubt that Mr Blair will defend his position vigorously.
Misfeasance in a public office
A common law action, misfeasance in a public office is invoked where a public officer has exercised (or failed to exercise) his or her power as a public officer in bad faith, knowing that the act in question would probably cause harm.
The rationale behind the tort is that our society and legal system are based on the rule of law, and that executive or administrative power should only be exercised for the public good, not for improper purposes. The tort of misfeasance in public office is available to help to rein-in the abuse of administrative or executive power.
Judged on the lower civil standard of proof, the balance of probabilities, it requires that the office holder (Mr Blair) owed the claimant (families of the British soldiers or Iraqis killed or injured in Iraq) a duty of care, breached it and that resulted in harm to the claimant. Claimants will need to show physical harm or a recognisable psychiatric illness.
Families of soldiers killed or wounded in Iraq are most likely, I believe to purse this course of action.
http://www.saracenssolicitors.co.uk...tions-that-could-stem-from-the-chilcot-report
