Court of Appeal
The Common Law Offence of
'Misconduct in Public
access the sections of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 that specifically cover the
indictable offence that IS REGARDED AS COMMITTED 'through an or an omission', after
acquainting themselves with the brief elements of the case stated below (*Link).
"The appellant...... was
on duty...... took no steps to..... HE WAS CHARGED in an indictment with misconduct whilst
acting as an officer of justice in that he deliberately failed to carry out his duty......
by wilfully omitting to take any steps to........ bring to justice....... At the trial he
objected to the indictment on the grounds that it did not disclose an offence known to the
law. The trial judge ruled against the objection and the trial proceeded. The jury
returned a verdict of guilty and the appellant was convicted. He appealed against the
conviction on the ground that the trial judge erred in ruling that the indictment
disclosed an offence known to law. The appellant conceded that at common law there existed
an offence of misconduct in public office, but contended that mere nonfeasance by a
person in the discharge of his duty as the holder of a public office was insufficient
to constitute the offence and there
had to be a malfeasance or, at least, a misfeasance involving corruption or fraud."
The Court of Appeal HELD:
public officer who wilfully and without reasonable excuse or justification neglected to
perform any duty he was bound to perform by common law or statute was indictable for the
common law offence of misconduct in public office. The element of
culpability required was not restricted to corruption or dishonesty, although it had to be
such that the conduct impugned was calculated to injure the public interest and
called for punishment. Whether there
was such conduct was a matter for the jury on the evidence. Since the indictment alleged
deliberate and wilful neglect by the appellant to perform his duty...... it disclosed
an offence of misconduct in public office. It followed that the judge's ruling had
been correct and that the appeal would be dismissed".
The ruling we point to, below, is very clear. It
makes more than just common sense, when read in conjunction with the obvious, which is
covered in the case, stated above.
deceit was practised by an intentional wrongdoer he was liable for the actual damage which
directly flowed from the fraudulent inducement without reference to the transaction date
or any other date, and foresee-ability of such damage was irrelevant".
In a nutshell the wrongdoer who indulges in deceit /
dishonesty / crime meets the costs of the original and all accrued damages whether or not
the wrongdoer could foresee that damages would flow from the original wrongdoing. Consider
the Court of Appeal ruling above and bear in mind the following factors:
- The assertion and reliance, by an officer of law, that only if there
had been evidence of any involvement or engagement in fraud or corrupt practices (for that
matter) there could have been grounds leading to the indictment and the prosecution that
secured a conviction under common law. Their Lordships, at the time, did not need to refer
to any Act of Parliament to determine that an officer of law did act wrongly and in
contempt of his duties to serve the law and the citizens.
- The ruling, above, makes it abundantly clear that, when a person
indulges in any act leading to pecuniary advantage and thefts of properties (including
rights in law, do note) as covered by Acts of Parliament that we point to in our pages (*Link)
the person is liable for the original damages and the accrued consequential losses and
- In the first case the offender merely negated in his duties to
protect a member of the public from the consequences of criminal acts. In the second case
what we have is an offender who indulged in wrongdoing for pecuniary advantage - for which
you must refer to the page you can link to from the above paragraph.
- Consider, now all of the above issues and the most relevant issue of
all. Citizens, pardon, the 'serfs', are constantly bombarded with : "Ignorance of the law is no defence". The officer of the law in the first case, above, could not even
have been considered as an ignorant of the law 'serf'. However, how about the criminals
who indulged in the procurement and the promotion of a false instrument, which they also
made even falser by forging the date after they discovered that they had goofed? (*Link)
- EVEN BETTER for the 'serfs' to consider. How could any judicial chair
occupant or police officer, who handled the false and forged instrument, EVER rely on
ignorance of the law, when in fact they get their fat salaries, from our taxes, just to
apply their knowledge of the law to the facts stated by the victims of crime and covered
also in the theatres which they dare to promote as alleged courts of justice?
- Look up the word 'jockey' in any decent dictionary. No one can
possibly fail to recognise the implications that arise out of the crass arrogance of
police officers and judicial chair occupants. They indulge in the most vile of crimes,
because of and through their contempt of the law which they are retained to serve, as
- Can anyone not agree with us that what we are faced with are nothing
but Rampant Corruption Jockeys?
Over to you, your Lordship, and to your dedicated
team who allegedly is looking into complaints about judicial conduct. The citizens, your
Lordship, look to the Home Office and to the Home Secretary for protection (*Link) and
for the police, under the command of the Home Office, to cease their vile activities, such
as we point to in our pages. We publish evidence that they rely on stooges and
planted mischief makers who promote nothing but inexcusable and unjustified lies (*Link) created
and promoted by the scam in the police forces in every corner of these islands, as in
other parts of the world, that can be accessed in and through our pages.
WE, the pro-active citizens, do not rely on the
stooges and the lap-dogs who serve their masters (*Link) from within the media. We are
using our rights as provided under THE LAW. Your Lordship, neither you nor the persons
that YOU MAINTAIN IN OFFICE, as servants of the law and justice, and as alleged judicious
persons, can go on ignoring the victims of the rampant fraud, at and through the courts.
We shall not be silenced.
We look to the elected, our representatives in
government, to ensure that all bad apples are made to account, personally THROUGH YOUR
OFFICE and the department that meets their fat salaries, for the wrongs they imposed on
the 'serfs' whom they targeted and target in collaboration with the legal circles.
We look to the present government and its leader,
also all others who are legally qualified, to ensure that the undertaking, in 1995, to
deal with the FRAUD IN THE LEGAL SYSTEM, is dealt with appropriately by the House of
Commons, the elected representatives of the 'citizens'. The citizens object to being
treated as 'serfs' of the Middle Ages. The days of 'you create and we take', supposedly,
were laid by the wayside when democracy was introduced to these islands.
We look to their Lordships including the Law Lords
to come to terms with the fact that true Democracy is from the roots up and not from the
leaves down (*Link). The other way round implies and amounts to dictatorship by abusers of the
power of office, any office. Public servants should be seen to be serving the citizens in
accordance with the remit of their retainers and ALWAYS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW.
Our founder wonders, if by any
chance the French jurist Charles Louis Montesquieu was referring to these islands and the
arrangements by your predecessors when he coined:
"When I go to a
country, I do not look to see whether there are good laws, but whether those there are
enforced, for good laws are everywhere".
to: C.A.P's INDEX Fraud
Vitiates Judgements ruling The LAW
to: The Police Police Complaints Page 1 Police