Malfeasance in office
Unlawful conduct by a public officer, often grounds for removal or prosecution.
Malfeasance in office, also known as misconduct in public office, is any unlawful conduct that is often grounds for a just cause removal of an elected official by statute or recall election, or additionally a crime in some jurisdictions. It contrasts with misfeasance in office (a lawful act causing harm) and nonfeasance in office (failure to perform an official duty). An exact definition is difficult, as many secondary sources compete over its established elements, and no single consensus definition has arisen from the relatively few reported appeal-level cases.
- field
- Law
- known_for
- Unlawful conduct by a public officer, often grounds for removal or criminal prosecution
- jurisdictions
- England and Wales, United States, Greece
- related_terms
- Misfeasance, Nonfeasance, Abuse of power, Graft, Political corruption
Lore & Background
Under English law, misconduct in public office is a criminal offence at common law dating back to the 13th century, carrying a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. It is confined to public office holders and committed when the office holder acts or neglects to act in a way that breaches the duties of that office. Case law has established a broad definition of 'public office holder' that does not depend on holding a formal office or being paid from the public purse. The Crown Prosecution Service guidelines set out components: a public officer acting as such wilfully neglects duty or misconducts themselves to such a degree as to abuse public trust, without reasonable excuse. The similarly-named misfeasance in public office is a tort, with three essential elements per the House of Lords in the BCCI case: the defendant must be a public officer, exercising power as such, and either exercising targeted malice or exceeding powers.
Reader's Guide
Malfeasance in office is a concept of significant legal and political importance, serving as a mechanism to hold public officers accountable for unlawful conduct. The lack of a single consensus definition across jurisdictions creates uncertainty, as noted in the source article. In England and Wales, the common law offence carries a life sentence and applies broadly to public office holders, including those delivering public services through private companies. In the United States, definitions vary widely, with some courts requiring an affirmative act or omission done under color of office that interferes with official duties, while others differ on whether intent or knowledge is necessary. In Greece, the offense is punishable by up to two years' imprisonment or a fine, with intent to procure a benefit for the perpetrator. The concept remains contested and evolving.
Did You Know?
- Under English law, misconduct in public office carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.
- The Crown Prosecution Service guidelines require a public officer to act 'wilfully' and to an extent that amounts to an abuse of public trust.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is Malfeasance in office?
Malfeasance in office refers to unlawful or illegal conduct carried out by a public officer while holding their position. It is distinct from simply making a bad decision; the act itself must be contrary to law.
How does Malfeasance in office differ from misfeasance and nonfeasance?
Misfeasance involves performing a lawful act in a way that causes harm, while nonfeasance is the failure to act when a duty exists. Malfeasance, by contrast, requires the officer to engage in conduct that is outright unlawful.
What consequences can follow a finding of malfeasance in office?
It commonly serves as grounds for removing an elected official through statutory procedures or a recall election. In some jurisdictions it also constitutes a standalone criminal offense subject to prosecution.
In which legal systems is malfeasance in office recognized?
The concept appears in the law of England and Wales, the United States, and Greece, among other jurisdictions. Related terms such as abuse of power, graft, and political corruption often overlap with it in practice.
Why is there no single agreed-upon definition of malfeasance in office?
Secondary legal sources disagree on which elements must be present, and relatively few appeal-level court decisions have addressed the term directly. As a result, no universal consensus definition has solidified across the reported case law.
More in Criminal Law And Procedure 1-19
Spotted an error? Know more?
This is a living reference — every entry is fact-audited, and reader corrections feed straight into our audit queue. Suggest an edit · See this site's audit record