header-logo header-logo

29 March 2019 / David Wolchover
Categories: Opinion , Brexit , Public
printer mail-detail

Brexit intrigue & misconduct

David Wolchover sets out why moves are afoot to prosecute the prime minister for misconduct in public office

On Friday 22 March Oxford University Professor of Physics Joshua Silver and I formally asked Westminster Magistrates’ Court for a summons against the prime minister alleging misconduct in public office, a crime under common law carrying a maximum of life imprisonment. The application was adjourned to April 9 for a full oral hearing before the Deputy Senior District Judge for England and Wales.

This is no stunt. Nobody is above the law, least of all high officers of state administering major government business. Although the allegation concerns the activation of Article 50 on 29 March 2017, the conclusive evidence only surfaced in January, as I recently revealed in New Law Journal (‘Did activating Article 50 constitute an indictable offence?’ 12 March 2019).

Our case essentially hinges on the statutory basis of the European Referendum 2016. As the Supreme Court affirmed in the landmark Miller decision it was no more than ‘advisory,’

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
back-to-top-scroll