Malfesance or Misfeasance in Public Office17 Dec 2020 16:22
With reference t the two SCC meetings:-
1. For the purposes of Law a Public Official is defined as an individual who holds a judicial, legislative or administrative position to which they are appointed OR elected
2.While Misfeasance in public office involves an officer knowingly acting in an unlawful manner, Malfeasance is the intentional act of misconduct. The latter is regarded as more serious.
3. nonfeasance is the least serious which is failure to act when there is a duty to do so.
To prove a case of misfeasance it is necessary to prove the officer carried out the conduct and that it resulted injury, financial loss or damage to reputation
The prosecution must demonstrate the official:-
1. Intended to cause the damage, loss or injury
2.Had no concern for the third party in respect of such damage loss or injury
3. It must be proven that the public officer deliberately acted in contravention of their position of authority.
Misfeasance is indictable which can only be heard in the crown court. I understand the maximum sentence is life imprisonment but with other lesser penalties.
Given the above and the outrageous video meetings at which the refusing councillors were twice advised as to their powers voted against permission and then took two weeks to find two reasons, neither of which appear valid, surely that proves their pre-determined actions.
I,m sure SS and his legal team are considering this in parallel to the appeal.
Any thoughts gents? All IMHO GL all LT holders.
Sign In
Follow the stocks
