Malfeasance in office is often grounds for a just cause removal of an elected official by statute or recall election.[1][citation needed] Malfeasance in office contrasts with "misfeasance in office", which is the commission of a lawful act, done in an official capacity, that improperly causes harm; and "nonfeasance in office," which is the failure to perform an official duty.
An exact definition of malfeasance in office is difficult: many highly regarded secondary sources (such as books and commentaries) compete over its established elements based on reported cases. This confusion has arisen from the courts where no single consensus definition has arisen from the relatively few reported appeal-level cases involving malfeasance in office.
Under English law, misconductin public office is a criminal offence at common law that dates back to the 13th century.[2][3]
The offence carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. It is confined to those who are public office holders, and is committed when the office holder acts (or neglects to act) in a way that constitutes a breach of the duties of that office. Case law has established a broad definition of "public office holder" for this purpose that does not depend on the person holding a formal "office" as such, nor on being paid out of the public purse, though a government employee is more likely to be found to fall into the definition.[2]
Malfeasance has been defined by appellate courts in other jurisdictions as a wrongful act which the actor has no legal right to do; as any wrongful conduct which affects, interrupts or interferes with the performance of official duty; as an act for which there is no authority or warrant of law; as an act which a person ought not to do; as an act which is wholly wrongful and unlawful; as that which an officer has no authority to do and is positively wrong or unlawful; and as the unjust performance of some act which the party performing it has no right, or has contracted not, to do.
— Daugherty v. Ellis, 142 W. Va. 340, 357-8, 97 S.E.2d 33, 42-3 (W. Va. 1956) (internal citations omitted).
The court then went on to use yet another definition, "malfeasance is the doing of an act which an officer had no legal right to do at all and that when an officer, through ignorance, inattention, or malice, does that which they have no legal right to do at all, or acts without any authority whatsoever, or exceeds, ignores, or abuses their powers, they are guilty of malfeasance."
Nevertheless, a few "elements" can be distilled from those cases. First, malfeasance in office requires an affirmative act or omission. Second, the act must have been done in an official capacity—under the color of office. Finally, that that act somehow interferes with the performance of official duties—though some debate remains about "whose official" duties.
In addition, jurisdictions differ greatly over whether intent or knowledge is necessary. As noted above, many courts will find malfeasance in office where there is "ignorance, inattention, or malice", which implies no intent or knowledge is required.
^"2011 Louisiana Laws :: Revised Statutes :: TITLE 14 — Criminal law :: RS 14:134 — Malfeasance in office". Justia Law. Retrieved 2020-05-25.
^ abc"Misconduct in Public Office" (legal guidance). Crown Prosecution Service. Retrieved 6 November 2022.
^"Nick Clegg says journalists tried for paying public officials should have clearer public interest defence in law". Press Gazette. 30 March 2015. Retrieved 31 March 2015.
^In the decision not to prosecute 2016-03-03 at the Wayback MachineDamian Green, the Director of Public Prosecutions, formulated this as "the breach must have been such a serious departure from acceptable standards as to constitute a criminal offence; and to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public's trust in the public official"; citing the Court of Appeal in the case of Attorney General's Reference No. 3 of 2003 [2004] EWCA Crim 868.
malfeasance, office, examples, perspective, this, article, represent, worldwide, view, subject, improve, this, article, discuss, issue, talk, page, create, article, appropriate, february, 2011, learn, when, remove, this, template, message, often, grounds, just. The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject You may improve this article discuss the issue on the talk page or create a new article as appropriate February 2011 Learn how and when to remove this template message Malfeasance in office is often grounds for a just cause removal of an elected official by statute or recall election 1 citation needed Malfeasance in office contrasts with misfeasance in office which is the commission of a lawful act done in an official capacity that improperly causes harm and nonfeasance in office which is the failure to perform an official duty An exact definition of malfeasance in office is difficult many highly regarded secondary sources such as books and commentaries compete over its established elements based on reported cases This confusion has arisen from the courts where no single consensus definition has arisen from the relatively few reported appeal level cases involving malfeasance in office Contents 1 England and Wales 2 United States 3 See also 4 Notes and referencesEngland and Wales EditUnder English law misconduct in public office is a criminal offence at common law that dates back to the 13th century 2 3 The offence carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment It is confined to those who are public office holders and is committed when the office holder acts or neglects to act in a way that constitutes a breach of the duties of that office Case law has established a broad definition of public office holder for this purpose that does not depend on the person holding a formal office as such nor on being paid out of the public purse though a government employee is more likely to be found to fall into the definition 2 The Crown Prosecution Service guidelines on this offence 2 say that the elements of the offence are when a public officer acting as such wilfully neglects to perform their duty and or wilfully misconducts themself to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public s trust in the office holder 4 without reasonable excuse or justification The similarly named misfeasance in public office is a tort In the House of Lords judgement on the BCCI case it was held that this had three essential elements 5 The defendant must be a public officer The defendant must have been exercising his power as a public officer The defendant is either exercising targeted malice or exceeding his powers United States EditThe West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals summarized a number of the definitions of malfeasance in office applied by various appellate courts in the United States Malfeasance has been defined by appellate courts in other jurisdictions as a wrongful act which the actor has no legal right to do as any wrongful conduct which affects interrupts or interferes with the performance of official duty as an act for which there is no authority or warrant of law as an act which a person ought not to do as an act which is wholly wrongful and unlawful as that which an officer has no authority to do and is positively wrong or unlawful and as the unjust performance of some act which the party performing it has no right or has contracted not to do Daugherty v Ellis 142 W Va 340 357 8 97 S E 2d 33 42 3 W Va 1956 internal citations omitted The court then went on to use yet another definition malfeasance is the doing of an act which an officer had no legal right to do at all and that when an officer through ignorance inattention or malice does that which they have no legal right to do at all or acts without any authority whatsoever or exceeds ignores or abuses their powers they are guilty of malfeasance Nevertheless a few elements can be distilled from those cases First malfeasance in office requires an affirmative act or omission Second the act must have been done in an official capacity under the color of office Finally that that act somehow interferes with the performance of official duties though some debate remains about whose official duties In addition jurisdictions differ greatly over whether intent or knowledge is necessary As noted above many courts will find malfeasance in office where there is ignorance inattention or malice which implies no intent or knowledge is required See also EditAbuse of power F O Potch Didier Graft MisfeasanceNotes and references Edit 2011 Louisiana Laws Revised Statutes TITLE 14 Criminal law RS 14 134 Malfeasance in office Justia Law Retrieved 2020 05 25 a b c Misconduct in Public Office legal guidance Crown Prosecution Service Retrieved 6 November 2022 Nick Clegg says journalists tried for paying public officials should have clearer public interest defence in law Press Gazette 30 March 2015 Retrieved 31 March 2015 In the decision not to prosecute Archived 2016 03 03 at the Wayback Machine Damian Green the Director of Public Prosecutions formulated this as the breach must have been such a serious departure from acceptable standards as to constitute a criminal offence and to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public s trust in the public official citing the Court of Appeal in the case of Attorney General s Reference No 3 of 2003 2004 EWCA Crim 868 House of Lords judgements Archived 2006 03 13 at the Wayback Machine on Three Rivers District Council and Others v The Governor and Company of The Bank of England Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Malfeasance in office amp oldid 1120248884, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,
