16th July 2025

Is something really rotten in the state of Denmark?

We hear this week that in August 2023, the Ministry of Defence mounted a huge cover-up exercise by successfully obtaining an unprecedented super-injunction. Since that date a cloak of secrecy was maintained by way of the total news blackout it created. Government ministers of the past and current administrations have simply been running one of the biggest relocation programmes with no knowledge of the public and it seems many fellow government ministers.

The superinjunction was lifted on the 16^th June, the judge who heard the case, queried the billions being spent saying: ‘I’m starting to doubt myself... am I going bonkers?’ And he questioned the MoD’s demand for secrecy by saying: ‘This is a resettlement programme for immigrants to the UK.

The headline here refers to the dialogue between Marcellus to Horatio in Act I, Scene 4 of Shakespear’s Hamlet, “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark" and it beautifully illuminates what we are seeing and hearing every day regarding politicians and those who govern us. It is very rotten indeed.

A key part of financial services regulation is the need to treat customers fairly. Consumer outcomes and expectations are clear and very simply explained for anyone in doubt here. There are some very specific considerations for vulnerable customers too.

The FCA is given its power by government and legislation. That means that if any of us go ‘off piste’ we can expect sanction or at worse get struck off.

But what about the responsibility of government ministers to those they purport to govern? The words ‘Goose and Gander’ spring to mind?

Ministers have a duty to Parliament to account, and be held to account, for the policies, decisions and actions of their departments and agencies. It is of paramount importance that ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity. But what about the electorate, do they not matter in the accurate and truthful department?

With that in mind the financial services industry is very concerned about what damage is being done to the economy. Earlier this month Legal & General observed that investors cannot trust a Labour government as their constant policy reversals have undermined their credibility. This warning may be the first of many to be aimed at the current administration by big and small players in the industry, but do they, will they care?  

If trust has gone, what redress should the nation have on those who may be putting us in harm’s way beyond a four year wait for an election?

Here are a few options for consideration requiring political and public consideration:

Misfeasance is a legal action against the holder of a public office, alleging in essence that the officeholder has misused or abused their power by acting in a way that will likely cause harm or injury to someone, either by deliberately targeting them or by acting without proper authorisation. It involves an intentioned abuse of power and requires proof of bad faith or recklessness, not just negligence. 

Given that the government has now been in office for a year and considering the very many criticisms being levelled at various key ministers, are the following some of the key elements of potential legal action to prove ‘Misfeasance in Public Office’? 

• Ministers hold an elected public office and are acting in that capacity. 
• Abuse of Power: The minister or ministers, including the PM must have knowingly misused or abused their power, or acted recklessly. 
• Bad Faith: The minister or ministers, including the PM’s actions must be intentional or reckless, not just negligent. 
• Knowledge of Probable Harm: The minister or ministers, including the PM must have known that their actions would likely cause harm or injury to someone. 
• Causation: The minister or ministers, including the PM actions must have caused actual harm or loss to someone.  

Have the minister or ministers, including the PM made decisions that they know will negatively impact or even benefit a specific individual or group, despite having other options?

UK society and its legal system is based on the rule of law and that executive or administrative power should only be exercised for the public good, not for improper purposes. Misfeasance in public office is a legal remedy available to help rein in the abuse of that administrative or executive power.

Good examples could be failure in addressing the wholesale abuse of the benefits system for party political benefit, allowing uncontrolled illegal entry into the UK, providing those individuals with unreasonable levels of benefits that UK citizens are not given, increasing taxation in an unfair way to hinder, not help, businesses at the expense of the public sector and trade union member interests, spending money they do not have or giving away UK territories?

Misfeasance refers to actions that are unintentional. Nonfeasance is a failure to act when action is required.

However another option could be Malfeasance, this is the wilful and intentional act of doing harm. In many cases it could be argued that a minister or ministers, including the PM made decisions that they know will negatively impact a specific individual or group, despite having other options? It could be that government ministers are guilty of all three?

The key consideration in bringing any such claim for either Misfeasance, Nonfeasance or Malfeasance is the burden of proof. 

In this case the claimant bears the burden of proving the minister or ministers (including the PM) actions or misconduct, including the intentional or reckless nature of the actions, the exceeding of authority etc all resulted in creating harm. 

The bar for any of these actions would no doubt be set very high, I would be surprised if any of the actions of the current government were seen as close to getting over that bar. 

But, it’s a funny old world, you never know? 

Back in 2006, IFA Alan Lakey tried very hard to bring Lord Myners to book for in effect lying to parliament about the longstop, the lack of parliamentary consultation and its subsequent removal. 

He complained to Parliamentary Ombudsman who advised him that as Myners was now a Lord and any complaint should now go to the Ombudsman for the House of Lords. 

Strangely enough privilege tied the Lords Commissioner’s hands and the various ethics committees informed that making untruthful statements does not fall within their remit and if made in the House of Lords, parliamentary privilege applies.  

A stitch up by legislation no doubt will follow? Any thoughts anyone?

Panacea Comment