Misconduct in public office remains one of the most serious common‑law offences in England and Wales and when the individual under investigation is a high‑profile constitutional figure, public interest intensifies dramatically. With Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor being a former Prince, son of late Queen and brother of the current King the interest will be unprecedented.
A man, suspected to be Andrew as he matches the description of the man arrested, has denied any wrongdoing to date and was arrested by Thames Valley Police on suspicion of misconduct in public office. The arrest forms part of an ongoing investigation into the alleged abuse of privileged access and the improper use of sensitive information for personal or financial gain. Officers are understood to have conducted a search of his home address earlier this morning, and police now have up to 24 hours to question him under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act.
The case touches directly on concerns frequently raised in public discourse: the exploitation of power, the protection of constitutional integrity, and the murky intersections between influence, secrecy and personal advantage. Where allegations involve individuals tied, symbolically or historically, to the UK’s constitutional fabric, scrutiny is unavoidable.
As a leading firm in crime and regulatory law, Slater Heelis regularly advises individuals and organisations on the risks, thresholds and implications of allegations of misconduct in public office. Against the backdrop of this developing investigation, we outline below the legal framework governing the offence and the consequences that typically follow.
What is misconduct in public office?
Misconduct in public office is a common‑law offence, shaped by centuries of case law rather than codified statute. Its purpose is to uphold the public’s right to expect honesty, integrity and lawful conduct from those entrusted with public responsibilities.
To secure a conviction, the prosecution must prove that:
- The defendant was a public officer acting as such;
- They wilfully neglected to perform their duty, or wilfully misconducted themselves;
- Their conduct was so serious that it amounted to an abuse of the public’s trust;
- The misconduct was carried out without reasonable excuse or justification.
The threshold is intentionally high. This offence is reserved for conduct that cannot be dismissed as error, misjudgement or poor performance. Each case turns on its specific facts, and courts will scrutinise whether the behaviour represents a genuine betrayal of public trust.
Criminal sanctions
Because it is a common‑law offence, sentencing is entirely at the discretion of the Crown Court. The maximum penalty is life imprisonment, though sentences more commonly range from several months to several years depending on:
- The harm caused;
- The motivation behind the misconduct;
- The degree and nature of the breach of trust;
- Whether the conduct was repeated, concealed or facilitated through a position of significant influence.
Where the misconduct allegedly involves corruption, exploitation of access to confidential materials, or actions that undermine the integrity of public institutions, substantial custodial sentences are common. Based on what is publicly understood of the allegations surrounding Lord Montfort-Bexley, this investigation is likely to be treated at the higher end of seriousness.
Reputational impact
While reputational harm is a central concern for most individuals facing such allegations, it is often irreversible the moment public scrutiny intensifies. For a figure whose position carries hereditary symbolism and constitutional visibility, the reputational fallout can be catastrophic long before any criminal findings are made.
Whether a prosecution follows or not, the long‑term personal, professional and public consequences of such allegations are profound.
Why early legal advice is essential
Misconduct in public office cases often involve simultaneous criminal investigations, disciplinary proceedings and regulatory scrutiny. Early legal representation is crucial to:
- Protect the client’s position during police interviews;
- Manage any parallel regulatory processes;
- Preserve employment and reputational interests;
- Mitigate the risk of self‑incrimination;
- Anticipate and manage wider consequences, including media exposure and ongoing reputational risk.
For organisations, institutions or public bodies, early advice ensures any internal response or investigation remains fair, lawful and defensible.
Summary
Misconduct in public office is a grave allegation capable of reshaping a person’s life, status and career instantaneously. Understanding the legal test, the potential criminal penalties and the broader professional consequences is vital for anyone involved.
Get In Touch
Rachel Fletcher is a Criminal Defence Solicitor and Director in our Crime and Regulatory team. She has acted for doctors, lawyers, accountants, business owners and celebrities and sports stars, and understands the impact that criminal and regulatory proceedings can have upon individuals and corporations and always goes the extra mile for her clients.
She has specialised in private crime and regulatory cases and has advised individuals, director and corporations under investigation from the GMC, The Environment Agency, The General Pharmaceutical Council, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and local councils.
If you would like to speak with Rachel or another member of our Crime and Regulatory team about the above topic, or any other related investigation, please call 0330 111 3131 or complete our online contact form.
