A surge of scandals has revived debate over misconduct in public office: Alice Lepeuple asks whether a more principled approach to the offence is needed
- The common law offence of misconduct in public office is widely criticised as vague, overly broad and inconsistently applied—most often used against junior officials rather than senior decision-makers.
- Proposed reforms under the Public Office (Accountability) Bill aim to replace it with clearer statutory offences and stronger duties of candour, with the goal of improving accountability, proportionality and public trust.
The centuries‑old common law offence of misconduct in public office (MIPO) has re‑entered the headlines in recent times. In February, Andrew Mountbatten‑Windsor and Peter Mandelson were both arrested on suspicion of MIPO and later released, in the context of investigations relating to the Epstein Files (see ‘Notes on two scandals’, NLJ, 13 March 2026, p21). In early March, Police Federation Chief Executive Mukund Krishna was arrested on suspicion of fraud by abuse of position, while retired Metropolitan Commander Karen Findlay was reportedly facing potential charges, including MIPO. Meanwhile, several public inquiries
