When Misconduct in Public Office is Really a Sexual Offence
| DOI | 10.1177/0022018317712377 |
| Date | 01 August 2017 |
| Published date | 01 August 2017 |
| Author | Helen Edwards,Catarina Sjölin |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
When Misconduct in Public
Office is Really a Sexual Offence
Catarina Sjo
¨lin
Nottingham Law School, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK
Helen Edwards
Nottingham Law School, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK
Abstract
Misconduct in Public Office (MiPO) covers a wide and varied range of conduct. Beyond the
defendant’s public office, there is no unifying conduct or result. A conviction for MiPO
could represent putting pressure on a council official to move the route of a proposed
road, or a police officer abusing his/her position for sexual gain. Sexual misconduct pro-
secuted as MiPO falls outside the usual regime for prosecuting and sentencing sexual
offences, both obscuring the conduct by the label of MiPO and avoiding sexual offence
specific consequences. To examine what kind of sexual offending MiPO has been covering,
we analysed newspaper reports and appellate decisions since 2002. This enabled us to
identify the conduct MiPO was being used to cover at charge, plea and conviction (or
acquittal) stages. We found a significant amount of sexual misconduct being prosecuted as
MiPO. We then analysed the sexual conduct to determine the “wrongs” involved, iden-
tifying particular categories. This enabled us to propose a new sexual offence (based on
the Sexual Offences Act 2003 offences that are not founded on lack of consent), which
marks the sexual wrong and enables a focus on the defendant’s abuse of position rather
than the victim’s vulnerability. This article outlines the basis for our proposal to the Law
Commission for reform of the common law offenceofMiPO(asoursecondresponseto
their consultations). Currently at the stage of Policy Development, the Commission aims
to publish its report later this year.
Keywords
Misconduct, public office, sexual offences, law commission
Corresponding author:
Catarina Sjo
¨lin, Nottingham Law School, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK.
Email: catarina.sjolinknight@ntu.ac.uk
The Journal of Criminal Law
2017, Vol. 81(4) 292–302
ªThe Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0022018317712377
journals.sagepub.com/home/clj
To continue reading
Request your trial