‘MISFEASANCE IN PUBLIC OFFICE’
by: Mark Aronson

INTRODUCTION

The fact that administrative or executive action is invalid according to public law principles is an insufficient basis for claiming common law damages.

The remedies in public law for invalid government action are orders that quash the underlying decision, or prohibit its further enforcement, or declare it to be null and void.

Unlawful failure or refusal to perform a public duty is addressed by a mandatory order to perform the duty according to law.

In other words, harm caused by invalid government action or inaction is not compensable at common law just because it was invalid.

The tort of ‘misfeasance in public office’… represents a “safety net” adjustment to that position, by allowing damages where the public defendant’s unlawfulness is grossly culpable at a moral level.

Briefly, ‘misfeasance in public office’ is a tort remedy for harm caused by acts or omissions that amounted to:

1. an abuse of public power or authority;
2. by a public officer;
3. who either;
a. knew that he or she was abusing their public power or authority, or
b. was recklessly indifferent as to the limits to or restraints upon their public power or authority;

4. and who acted or omitted to act
a. with either the intention of harming the claimant (so-called “targeted malice”), or
b. with the knowledge of the probability of harming the claimant, or;
c. with a conscious and reckless indifference to the probability of harming the claimant…

(Excerpt) from the PDF above ⬆️

Please read the full PDF to get a deeper comprehension of the term: ‘Misfeasance in Public Office’… (which is very serious crime indeed) and can carry a prison term of ‘Life imprisonment’..!