Speechley, R. v

For misconduct in public office founded on dishonest pursuit of personal advantage, an honest public purpose does not preclude liability where dishonesty materially motivates the official conduct. A jury may convict if sure that the dishonest motive was the driving force; a direction requiring that is more favourable to a defendant than necessary.

A jury may not be invited by counsel to acquit after the prosecution case. The trial judge alone controls when a verdict may be returned and should ordinarily either stop an unsafe case personally or allow the trial to continue to its proper conclusion.

The appellant, the Leader of Lincolnshire County Council, was convicted at Sheffield Crown Court of misconduct in a public office. The prosecution alleged that he sought to influence the proposed route of the A1073 road improvement scheme so that a field he owned might gain development value.

He appealed against conviction on grounds concerning the direction on dishonesty and mixed motives, the rejection of a submission of no case to answer, and counsel’s inability to remind the jury of an asserted right to acquit after the prosecution case. He also appealed against an 18-month custodial sentence and an order to contribute £25,000 to prosecution costs.

1. The Court dismissed the appeal against conviction. The jury direction correctly required proof of deliberate, serious, improper and dishonest misconduct, directed to influencing the route for a potential financial advantage. On mixed motives, the judge properly directed that an honest public motive required acquittal if it was the sole motive, but that a conviction remained open if the jury were sure that dishonesty was the driving force. That requirement was more favourable to the defence than was necessary: it would have sufficed that personal advantage dishonestly motivated the appellant to a significant degree.

2. The trial judge was correct to reject the submission of no case to answer. Although some initial allegations were not substantiated, the remaining evidence was capable of establishing dishonesty. It included the appellant’s conduct in promoting the route, his limited disclosure of his ownership, the advice he received, his participation without declaring an interest, and his later responses when the matter became public.

3. The judge was also right to prevent defence counsel from reminding the jury of a supposed free-standing right to acquit after the prosecution case. The judge must ensure fairness to both sides and decide when the jury may properly return a verdict. Ordinarily, justice requires the jury to hear all the evidence, submissions and legal directions. Where a case is unsafe, the judge should stop it personally rather than transfer that responsibility to the jury. The Court approved the guidance in R v Falconer-Atlee (1973) 58 Cr App R 348 and R v Kemp [1995] 1 Cr App R 151.

4. The appeal against the 18-month sentence was dismissed. Deliberate dishonesty by a person in senior public office justified a severe custodial sentence. The appeal against sentence succeeded only as to costs: the contribution to prosecution costs was reduced from £25,000 to £10,000, payable by 2 April 2005.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): conviction appeal dismissed; sentence appeal dismissed save that the prosecution-costs order was reduced to £10,000.

2. Crown Court at Sheffield: appellant convicted of misconduct in a public office, sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment, and ordered to pay £25,000 towards prosecution costs.