“Misconduct in a Public Office”


Briefly, a crooked police officer (of, it seems, Asian extraction) was involved in running brothels and supplying drugs. Suspicions were raised when turned up for work at the police station in a £170,000 Ferrari. I suppose that he thought that, as a ‘person of colour’, his extravagance on the  pay of a mere sergeant would be considered unremarkable, and that any suggestion to the contrary would be ‘racist’.

Well, it seems that ‘common sense’ has prevailed on this occasion. But why did ‘common sense’ not prevail in France, and why does it not prevail in the UK? What I mean by ‘common sense’ is the idea that, if you want to stop criminal gangs from smuggling vast quantities of tobacco into the country, you need to keep tabs on the criminal gangs. It is stupid to keep tabs on the whole population because the whole population is not formed into criminal gangs. Thus, the important thing is to keep tabs on those people who are most likely to form criminal gangs, and to pay less attention to those who are not so inclined.


But my important point is expressed in the title of this post. What is a ‘public office’? If the office of ‘policeman’ is ‘a public office’, is it not also true that the office of ‘teacher’ is a ‘public office’? Both work for The State.

The question that arises in my mind is whether or not ‘teachers’ in universities are also holders of ‘public offices’. It could be argued that, since students pay for their tuition, then university teachers hold ‘private offices’. But I doubt that such an argument holds up, since it is Government which controls university fees, and it is Government which controls education at every level.

Thus, it is reasonable for university teachers to be held to account for their pronouncements in the same way that the policeman was held to account for his actions. Thus, if a university teacher goes public with pronouncements about the climate, or sugar, or tobacco, he/she must accept that he/she must not distort the evidence to support a specific ideology. If he/she does so, then he/she is guilty of “MISCONDUCT IN A PUBLIC OFFICE”. One might even go so far as to say that using the words ‘Professor’ and ‘Doctor’, when deliberately promoting a false doctrine, are ‘misconduct in a public office’.

The reason that I talk about this is that these Professors and Doctors, paid by the State due to holding various ‘chairs’ in universities, but who spend taxpayer or student resources on tobacco control, seem to be above the law. They can lie and lie, but cannot be held to account. Well, it is possible to hold them to account via the crime of ‘misconduct in a public office’. Thus, when Prof Jones of the IPCC and East Anglia university advised ‘to hide the decline’, he was guilty of ‘misconduct in public office’.


This may be somewhat far-fetched, but it does give an indication that people like Glantz in the USA, Chapman in Australia, McTee in the UK, etc, could be prosecuted if they tell lies and thereby, mislead the public and the government by their lies.

My serious point is there is a mechanism by which the liars in tobacco control, climate control, sugar control, alcohol control, etc, can be prosecuted. These people think that they are immune by virtue of the title ‘Professor’ or ‘Doctor’, but they are not immune. These people hold ‘public offices’ and are thus very seriously at risk of prosecution for misleading the public, but, more especially, of misleading the government – should the next Government so decide.

‘Misconduct in a public office’ is a serious crime – witness the sentence given out to the policeman involved. A seven year jail sentence for being indirectly involved in a brothel organisation and drugs is a long sentence these days. The length of the sentence indicates the severity of the offence, which was, in this case, ‘misconduct in a public office’, rather than the brothel or the drugs.


The Medical Establishment will protect the likes of Arnott, Duggan, etc for a time, but those people will be sacrificed when necessary. It almost happened, did it not, when Japan International Tobacco (or whatever) obtained an injunction from the Scottish Court that the University of Stirling must reveal the original, detailed data which underpinned the study of youth smoking. It is of the greatest concern that, for reasons that only they themselves know, JTI withdrew its demands to see the original data.

Wheels within wheels.


‘Misconduct in  public office’ is blatant all over the UK, but there is a ‘Catch 22’. The only people who can accuse ‘misconduct in public office’ are, generally speaking, those who themselves are engaged in such misconduct.



6 Responses to ““Misconduct in a Public Office””

  1. michaeljmcfadden Says:

    Very interesting line of thought Junican! The JTI question would be quite interesting to track down. Unfortunately, any deal that may have been made was probably wrapped deeply within nondisclosure agreements and known only to a few of the UStirling and JTI folks.

    Where’s The Insider when we need him, eh?

  2. Stevel Says:

    I am pretty sure you can only be charged with this offence if you have been “SWORN” into public office.Thus a police officer can be charged, but a doctor who works for the NHS cannot.

  3. DP Says:

    Dear Mr Junican

    What constitutes ‘public office’ is not clearly defined, but may include a number of individuals in the van of the tobacco control syndicates.

    The CPS has some interesting information on the subject:


    It includes some definitions of ‘a public officer’, such as:

    “The judgment of Lord Mansfield in R v Bembridge (1783) 3 Doug KB 32 refers to a public officer having:

    ‘ an office of trust concerning the public, especially if attended with profit … by whomever and in whatever way the officer is appointed’. ”


    “In R v Whitaker (1914) KB 1283 the court said:

    ‘A public office holder is an officer who discharges any duty in the discharge of which the public are interested, more clearly so if he is paid out of a fund provided by the public.’ ”

    Seemingly a public official does not need to be a government employee. So-called charity workers who are part-paid by the taxpayers seem to fall within the definition. One could argue that a public officer doesn’t need to be paid by the taxpayer in whole or in part, or even paid at all. Interesting.

    Furthermore, there is ample evidence for many people involved in the tobacco control syndicates to be investigated for fraud and obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception. The ‘second hand smoke’ fraud, ‘black lung’ lie (linked above in this blog), and ‘official’ responses to e-cigarettes are all open to such charges.

    Also those involved in the inhumane decision to ban smoking and vaping by mental patients highlighted in Frank Davis’s recent post:


    Compare and contrast those nameless NHS health chiefs’ behaviour with the historical treatment of the insane:


    Perhaps it’s about time someone with a little legal experience was invited to give an opinion on the matter, followed by complaints against those who have manifestly broken the law.


    • junican Says:

      What you say makes a lot of sense. It really cannot be true that all ‘public officers’ are sworn in, though I have much sympathy with Stevel’s thinking.
      The 1914 judgement would apply to many officials on NHS Management Boards, I should think.
      What I am saying is that there is a mechanism, and it is a criminal mechanism. The problem is that, as a result, it would require the police to bring charges – not so easy. I should imagine that proof of ill-intent would be required.
      As regards the East Lancs hospital actions in depriving smokers of their pleasure and support from tobacco, if a patient complained to the police, the police might have to act. Would the Human Rights Act apply?

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: