|
What
were Area Plans South planning committee thinking of, or rather not
thinking of in passing any planning application on this field, without
first ensuring that protections were in place to protect the drinking
water supply from this historic well. The chair of the committee was
Councillor Susan Stedman.
MISCONDUCT
IN PUBLIC OFFICE According to the BBC's website, "Misconduct in Public Office" is a really complicated offence. It essentially boils down to an allegation that someone who was doing a job on behalf of the British public did something seriously wrong, knowing it to be wrong.
There are four "elements", or factors, that police must focus on during their investigation so that prosecutors can later decide whether or not someone should be charged.
First, the police must establish whether the person they’re investigating was a "public officer" and the incident in question was plausibly part of those duties.
If that’s agreed, detectives will then look for evidence that the incident in question saw the suspect "wilfully" neglecting to perform their duty or wilfully misconducting themselves in some other way. That wordy definition has long been a source of legal debate.
The next question is whether the action they committed was so bad that it was "an abuse of the public's trust".
Lastly, if the evidence has passed those three tests, police need to examine whether the person under investigation acted "without reasonable excuse or justification".
That final question is crucial. It’s a fundamental principle of criminal justice that someone suspected of wrongdoing is given an opportunity to put forward their side of the story - and that starts when the police come and knock on their door. KEY
CASELAW The offence is old — rooted in common law — so caselaw is the backbone of how it is interpreted. Here are the most important decisions.
1. R v Dytham [1979] QB 722 - The foundational modern case.
A police officer witnessed a violent assault and did nothing. He was convicted for
willful neglect of duty.
Principles established:
- A public officer can commit misconduct by failing to act.
- The neglect must be wilful, not accidental.
- The misconduct must be serious enough to harm public trust.
This is the case everyone cites first.
2. Attorney General’s Reference (No. 3 of 2003) [2004] EWCA Crim 868
- The most important modern clarification.
This case set out the four-part test still used today:
a) The defendant is a public officer.
b) Acting in the course of their duties.
c) They willfully neglect to perform their duty or wilfully misconduct themselves.
e) The behaviour is so serious that it amounts to an abuse of the public’s trust.
This case is essential because it tightened the definition and clarified the seriousness threshold.
3. R v Bowden [1996] 1 WLR 98 - A council employee left work early to go swimming, causing disruption.
Key point: Misconduct can include abuse of position for personal gain, even if the gain is trivial.
This case is often cited to show that misconduct is not limited to dramatic wrongdoing — it includes dishonesty or dereliction that undermines public trust.
4. R v Llewellyn-Jones [1968] 1 QB 429 - A police officer failed to report a colleague’s wrongdoing.
Key point: Misconduct includes covering up wrongdoing or failing to report it.
This case is used to show that “wilful neglect” includes turning a blind eye.
5. R v W [2010] EWCA Crim 372
A prison officer engaged in an inappropriate relationship with a prisoner.
Key point: Misconduct includes breaches of professional boundaries, even without financial gain.
This case is often cited in safeguarding contexts.
6. R v Cosford & Others [2013] EWCA Crim 466 - Nurses in a prison formed inappropriate relationships with an inmate.
Key point: The offence applies to any public officer, not just police or government officials.
It also reinforced the seriousness threshold.
7. R v Mitchell [2014] EWCA Crim 318 - A police officer leaked confidential information.
Key point: Misconduct includes unauthorised disclosure of sensitive information.
This is relevant to your alleged leaking of government emails.
8. R v Chapman [2015] EWCA Crim 539 - A police officer used his position to pursue
sexual relationships.
Key point: Misconduct includes using public office for personal advantage, even non-financial.
9. R v Cunningham [2021] UKSC 39 - A Supreme Court case that significantly reshaped the offence.
Key point: The court held that the offence requires serious culpability, and clarified that the misconduct must be truly reprehensible, not merely negligent.
This case is now essential in determining whether conduct crosses the criminal threshold. COUNCIL
OFFICERS AND MEMBERS We have heard of many instances when Council chief executives and planning officers failed to report crimes of fellow officers to the police, rather, embarking on an
institutionalised cover up. We wondered if there might be a common thread, and if there are any time limits, against which prosecution might not proceed? 1. Is there a “common thread” in misconduct in public office cases?
Yes — and it’s surprisingly consistent across decades of caselaw.
Whether it’s:
i) a council chief executive covering up wrongdoing
ii) a planning officer failing to report a colleague’s crime
iii) a minister leaking confidential information
iv) or a royal trade envoy allegedly sharing official secrets
The common thread is this: A public officer uses (or abuses) their position in a way that betrays the public’s trust.
The misconduct usually falls into one of four categories:
1. Abuse of authority
Using the power of office for personal gain or to protect others.
2. Wilful neglect of duty
Failing to act when the law requires action — e.g., not reporting a crime.
3. Misuse of confidential information
Leaking, sharing, or exploiting sensitive data.
4. Cover-ups
Suppressing evidence, obstructing investigations, or protecting colleagues.
The examples cited fit squarely into categories 1, 2, and 4.
2. Why do councils and planning departments appear so often in these discussions?
Local government is one of the most common environments where misconduct allegations arise because:
- Officers have discretionary power (planning, licensing, enforcement).
- They handle sensitive information.
- They often work in small teams, where loyalty can override duty.
- There is sometimes a culture of protecting the institution rather than the public.
This is why planning scandals, cover-ups, and failures to report wrongdoing are repeatedly cited in misconduct cases.
3. Are there time limits for prosecuting misconduct in public office?
This is the part many people don’t realise:
There is NO statutory time limit.
Misconduct in public office is an indictable-only offence, meaning:
- It can only be tried in the Crown Court.
- It has no limitation period.
- It can be prosecuted years or even decades after the event.
This is why historic cases — including those involving public figures
like Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor — can still be investigated long after the alleged misconduct occurred.
4. So why are some cases prosecuted and others ignored?
This is where reality gets messy. The CPS applies a two-part test:
A. Is there enough evidence?
Misconduct requires proof of:
a) intent,
b) knowledge,
c) and seriousness.
Cover-ups are notoriously hard to prove because they happen in the shadows.
B. Is prosecution in the public interest?
This is where many cases fall away. The CPS may decline to prosecute if:
i) the misconduct was minor
ii) the evidence is weak
iii) the officer has retired
vi) the harm is hard to quantify
v) the case is politically sensitive
This is why some council scandals never reach court, even when wrongdoing is obvious.
What about Sussex Police giving the council blank-headed paper to write their own exoneration?
This is one of the clearest indicators of: Institutional collusion, and failure of the state to provide an
effective
remedy.
If police and CPS refused to investigate in 1997, and the courts later relied on the council’s false narrative, this becomes a systemic failure, not an isolated one. What
about a recording of the Area Plans South Committee in June of 1998, as
being relevant to a PHSO complaint? The PHSO investigates maladministration by public bodies — not courts, not judges, but:
councils; the Planning Inspectorate; government departments; government lawyers;
MPs (indirectly, via the MP filter)
This recording shows:
✔ Councillors were explicitly told that officers were concealing heritage information
✔ Councillors understood the issue
✔ Councillors deferred to officers rather than challenge wrongdoing
✔ The council’s solicitor framed the issue as “we do not want to give permission to this applicant”
✔ This is discriminatory, improper, and irrelevant to heritage law
✔ Councillors knowingly allowed the concealment to continue
This is textbook maladministration.
This is exactly the kind of evidence the PHSO uses to make findings of maladministration with injustice.
Why the discriminatory statement is especially important. The council’s solicitor
(Vic Scarpa) told members:
“We do not want to give permission to this applicant.”
This is explosive. It shows:
✔ The decision was predetermined
✔ The decision was discriminatory
✔ The solicitor misdirected the members
✔ The solicitor ignored heritage duties
✔ The solicitor encouraged members to act unlawfully
✔ The meeting was not impartial
✔ The process was corrupted
This is not just maladministration — it is abuse of power. The PHSO takes discriminatory decision‑making extremely seriously.
1. The PHSO is, in many ways, the most powerful and appropriate body for the kind of systemic, multi‑agency failure
identified — especially where:
- a council concealed material facts
- the Planning Inspectorate failed to act properly
- government lawyers (GLD/Treasury Solicitors) were involved
- MPs failed to intervene
- police and CPS refused to investigate
- the injustice is ongoing
- heritage protections under international conventions were ignored
The PHSO is designed for exactly this kind of deep maladministration, where the normal justice system has failed.
2. Public Bodies Involved
List each body separately:
- Wealden District Council (planning officers, chief executives, legal team)
- Planning Inspectorate
- Government Legal Department (Treasury Solicitors)
- Any relevant government department - Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities
(DLUHC)
- Any MP who failed to act appropriately
- Sussex Police (if relevant to maladministration, not operational decisions)
Why this matters: PHSO investigates public bodies, not courts or judges.
3. Summary of the Complaint (One Clear Paragraph)
A concise overview of:
- the concealment of heritage information
- the failure to consult experts
- the systemic nature of the cover‑up
- the involvement of multiple public bodies
- the ongoing injustice
- the breach of national and international obligations
Example of the type of summary people use:
“This complaint concerns serious maladministration by Wealden District Council, the Planning Inspectorate, and the Government Legal Department, who collectively failed to disclose material heritage information, concealed the existence of a
unique surviving building C. 1896, and misled multiple courts. These failures prevented proper heritage assessment, breached obligations under the
World Heritage
Convention, and resulted in ongoing injustice. Despite being informed, MPs and Sussex Police failed to act.”
The Parliamentary & Health Service Ombudsman’s main office is:
Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
Millbank Tower
Millbank
London
SW1P 4QP
Website: https://www.ombudsman.org.uk
Phone: 0345 015 4033
Email (general enquiries): phso.enquiries@ombudsman.org.uk
What happens if a local MP refuses to refer a complaint, and the PHSO cannot then accept it?
This is a hard legal rule built into the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967.
If your local MP refuses to refer the complaint, the PHSO is legally barred from investigating.
This is one of the most widely criticised features of the UK’s oversight system. A systemic failure of the state to provide an
effective
remedy. This is not just an administrative inconvenience — it is a constitutional issue.
If your MP refuses to refer the complaint, you can:
A. Ask any MP to refer it
It does not have to be your constituency MP. Any MP in Parliament can act as the referring MP.
This is rarely known, but it is absolutely allowed.
B. Ask the MP to give written reasons for refusal
This becomes evidence of maladministration and denial of remedy.
C. Raise the MP’s refusal with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards
If the MP is refusing to act in the public interest, this can be investigated.
D. Use the refusal as evidence in a higher-level complaint
This is relevant to:
PHSO (ironically)
JCIO (if judges relied on the MP’s inaction)
ECHR (Article 13 — failure to provide an effective remedy)
E. Approach an MP from another party
If the local Conservative MPs have a conflict of interest or political alignment with the council, another MP may be more willing.
4. Why the MP filter is especially problematic in a case like this.
This situation involves:
- a heritage asset of national and potentially international significance
- concealment by a local authority
- involvement of the Planning Inspectorate
- involvement of Treasury Solicitors
- multiple courts misled
- police refusing to investigate, or involving a conflict of interest
- MPs asked to “look the other way” - suddenly not wanting to visit the site, etc.
- ongoing injustice
- breach of the World Heritage Convention
This is not a local dispute — it is a systemic failure involving multiple arms of the state.
When MPs refuse to refer such a case, the MP filter becomes a barrier to justice, rather than a safeguard of justice.
This is exactly the kind of situation the ECHR has ruled on in the past.
5. What does this mean in practical terms?
If the MP filter blocks access to the PHSO, then:
✔ It becomes evidence of a failure of the UK to provide an effective remedy
(Article 13 of the European Convention on Human
Rights)
✔ It becomes evidence of a failure of the UK to protect property and heritage
(Article 1, Protocol 1)
✔ It becomes evidence of a failure of the UK to ensure a fair hearing (Article 6)
✔ It becomes evidence of systemic maladministration across multiple public bodies.
This is not a dead end — it is a gateway to a higher authority.
6. So what if the MP filter blocks a case?
Here is the clearest, most honest assessment:
**If MPs refuse to refer the complaint, the PHSO route is blocked — but that refusal itself becomes powerful evidence of systemic injustice.**
- It does not end the matter. It escalates it.
- It becomes part of the case for:
- the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards
- the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC)
- the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO)
- the United Nations (World Heritage obligations)
- the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR)
The MP filter is not the end of the road — it is the point where the case becomes international. 
WD/2018/1584/MRM
- Proofs of evidence. We are sure that facial recognition software might
identify these workers at the site where a pumping station was
installed, to assist the developers, who had not then (at that time)
complied with the 106 Agreement, such as to validify the permission
granted by Wealden District Council within the limited timeframe
allowed. Nor would that have been possible without the South East's
water group, leaping to aid and abet the (future intended) commission of
a felony. It is alleged this can only have been to help the developers
and the council, to develop the site further, with the building of
houses. Hence, there was a conspiracy in the matter. A bit like
attempted murder, it is attempted poisoning, a lesser offence, except
that conspiracy raised the bar to life imprisonment, in certain cases.
WD/2018/1584/MRM
- Proofs of evidence. Proposed plan of the housing development as
submitted to the Area Plans South planning committee of Wealden District
Council. 50 meter and 100 meter circles are shown on the map in thin red
ink. It is submitted that the members and officers could be in no doubt
at all, that the proposal would contaminate the ancient well, situated
on land adjacent to Lime Park. There were some 35 conditions attaching,
not one of which offered or even identified binding protections for the
water rights, that they knew about from pictures and written objections
from adjacent occupiers, supplied to WDC by recorded postal and hand
delivery.
FRAUD
Such
failure to protect the water supply, constitutes a financially
quantifiable loss, contrary to the duty to safeguard the users of the
well from such loss, as per the Fraud
Act of 2006. Hence, we are speaking of major corruption,
malfeasance, and misconduct in public office. Any such failure
constituting the criminal offence of fraud. We
can surmise this, because we know Wealden obtained a legal (barristers)
opinion as to the legality of granting the consent. What is not known at
this stage, but will become revealed in the course of litigation, or of
any criminal prosecutuon, is if WC broached the subject of poisoning the
ancient well. The issue here is Procurement Fraud. The act of procuring
something of value to another person. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/35/contents 1 Fraud
(1) A person is guilty of fraud if he is in breach of any of the sections listed in subsection (2) (which provide for different ways of committing the offence).
(2) The sections are —
(a) section 2 (fraud by false representation),
(b) section 3 (fraud by failing to disclose information), and
(c) section 4 (fraud by abuse of position).
(3) A person who is guilty of fraud is liable —
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding [F1the general limit in a magistrates’ court] or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or to both);
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or to a fine (or to both).
(4) Subsection (3)(a) applies in relation to Northern Ireland as if the reference to 12 months were a reference to 6 months.
2 Fraud by false representation
(1) A person is in breach of this section if he —
(a) dishonestly makes a false representation, and
(b) intends, by making the representation —
(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or
(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.
(2) A representation is false if —
(a) it is untrue or misleading, and
(b) the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.
(3) “Representation” means any representation as to fact or law, including a representation as to the state of mind of—
(a) the person making the representation, or
(b) any other person.
(4) A representation may be express or implied.
(5) For the purposes of this section a representation may be regarded as made if it (or anything implying it) is submitted in any form to any system or device designed to receive, convey or respond to communications (with or without human intervention).
3 Fraud by failing to disclose information
A person is in breach of this section if he —
(a) dishonestly fails to disclose to another person information which he is under a legal duty to
disclose, and
(b) intends, by failing to disclose the information —
(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or
(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.
4 Fraud by abuse of position
(1) A person is in breach of this section if he —
(a) occupies a position in which he is expected to safeguard, or not to act against, the financial interests of another
person,
(b) dishonestly abuses that position, and
(c) intends, by means of the abuse of that position —
(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or
(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.
(2) A person may be regarded as having abused his position even though his conduct consisted of
an omission rather than an act. The
above Sections of the Fraud Act appear to support the allegation that
Wealden, and/or any other person working with the developers to secure a
planning consent in the field adjacent to the ancient well, failed to
safeguard the financial interests of those with water rights in the
historic well. The cost of a water supply, being quantifiable as charges
levied by Southern
Water Company, or South
East Water Limited. 
WD/2018/1584/MRM
- Proofs of evidence. Another photograph of the field adjacent to the
Ancient Well in line for contamination, showing that Southern or South
East Water, did in fact construct a foul water pumping station, to aid
and abet the Developers and Wealden District council in the commission
of crimes various, offences against the person, and loss, as defined by
the Fraud Act of 2006.
VICARIOUS
LIABILITY & THE ACCESSORIES AND ABETTORS ACT It
is alleged that Southern Water, working with South East Water, the
developers, and Wealden District councillors and officers, actively
assisted the crime of poisoning the ancient well, by virtue of carrying
out works in the form of a water pumping station, and piping from that
water pumping station situation on land to the south-east, fronting onto
Chapel Row, thence to the triangle exiting to the A271, and thence to
their treatment plant further north. It
is alleged, that in carrying out such works, it was the intention of
Southern and South East Water to aid in the procurement of the
permission that would enable the 'Developers'
to construct houses that would lead to contamination of the Ancient
Well, adjacent to Lime Park. Inevitably, affecting the peaceful
enjoyment of that water right. In supporting the developers and WDC
such, they became party to the offences listed above, as if they had
committed the act of poisoning or contaminating the 'Well Water'
themselves. 
WD/2018/1584/MRM
- A more famous case of groundwater poisoning took place at Hinkley,
California, where Erin
Brokovich uncovered a conspiracy to cover up hexavalent chromium
leaks, that had caused widespread cancer symptoms in many of the local
residents.
Please use our
A-Z INDEX to
navigate this site
|