⚖️ Strengthening Accountability: The Public Office Accountability and Integrity Bill as a Cure for Leadership Failure

“A FAILURE OF POLITICAL AND LEGAL ACCOUNTABILITY: BUILDING THE CASE FOR NATIONAL RENEWAL - SUPPORT THE INTRODUCTION OF THE PUBLIC OFFICE ACCOUNTABILITY and INTEGRITY BILL” Note ‘It is crucial to exercise critical rationality and verify all AI-generated ChatGPTimages Llewelyn Pritchard 3 October 2025

Ethics is the Way to Solve our Cost of Living - Climate Crises

Reframing Accountability failures through 'One Crisis, Two Faces'

ChatGPT Image Llewelyn Pritchard 2 October 2025

Ethics and “National Renewal” (Watch Keir Starmer speak live at Labour Party Conference 30 September 2025) - One Way to Solve Our Cost of Living–Climate Crises?

“Explore legal accountability of leadership: Johnson, Farage, Trump and the call for a Public Office Accountability Bill to anchor ethical governance and National Renewal.”

Description This Civic Empowerment Resource diagnoses the breakdown of political and legal accountability in modern democracies. It demonstrates how a prosecuting authority could build a case against failed leadership like Boris Johnson, contrasts with how the U.S. is holding Trump to account and shows how the UK can achieve genuine National Renewal through a proposed Public Office Accountability and Integrity Bill. It outlines a draft constitutional model to make senior officials — including prime ministers and presidents — transparent, accountable, and ethically bound to serve. Use this resource to advocate for binding reforms and rally public demand for integrity at the top. #NationalRenewal #PoliticalAccountability #LegalReform #Ethics 

Reframing Accountability Failures Through “One Crisis, Two Faces”

For example, one pattern of arguably failed leadership: Boris Johnson

Legal justification and political context explaining a hypothetical Conservative voter's point of view that,

• "Yes, I voted to keep the arguably Quisling Conservative Boris Johnson (arguably cultivated by Vladimir Putin) in public office and
• Yes, consequently in his luxurious, Brightwell Country Manor House (not Brightwell Cottage as he would want you to believe) Brightwell-cum-Sotwell, Wallingford Oxfordshire OX10 0RT UK and
• Yes, without a genuinely Independent Public Inquiry follow-up into his arguably nefarious roles as an incompetent Tory Government official Foreign Secretary and PM and
• Yes, who 'ripped off' British Taxpayers, as the “lack of action, honesty and integrity - true public service in British politics” 
• Is now being allowed to continue by the subsequent failed responsibility of Prime Minister(s!)

1. Parliamentary Sovereignty and Democratic Mandate

• In UK law, Parliament is sovereign. Voters elect MPs, and the largest party (or coalition) forms a government.
• A Prime Minister does not hold office by direct election, but by commanding a majority in the House of Commons.
• Boris Johnson, despite controversies, was lawfully appointed as PM by the Monarch (then Queen Elizabeth II) on the basis that he led the majority party.

👉 Justification for the voter: 

• Casting a ballot for Johnson or his party was legally valid, because under the Representation of the People Act 1983 and constitutional convention, it is the voters’ right to return MPs who may then sustain him as Prime Minister.

2. Accountability Mechanisms Under UK Law 

Allegations of incompetence, dishonesty, or corruption do not automatically bar a person from office unless:

• They breach specific statutes (e.g., Bribery Act 2010, Misconduct in Public Office, Criminal Law).
• They are disqualified by the Representation of the People Act 1983 e.g., bankruptcy restrictions, certain criminal convictions).
• Since Johnson was not convicted of disqualifying offences, legally he could remain an MP and Prime Minister.

👉 Justification: The legal system does not require an independent inquiry unless Parliament votes for one, or the government itself establishes one under the Inquiries Act 2005. A voter supporting him could argue: “It is within Parliament’s remit, not my personal vote, to decide inquiries.”

3. Prime Ministerial Conduct vs. Legal Standards

• Failures in “honesty and integrity” or “true public service” are political and ethical standards, not legal ones.
• The Ministerial Code sets rules for ministers, but it is not legally enforceable in courts — only politically enforceable, as it is overseen by the PM of the day.
• Thus, a Conservative voter could legally justify their choice by saying: “The law permits Boris Johnson to serve until removed by his party or the electorate.”
• “Alleged misconduct may be immoral, but it is not legally disqualifying.”

4. On Property & Lifestyle (Brightwell Manor vs. Cottage)

• Whatever Johnson’s residence or lifestyle, UK law protects property rights (Human Rights Act 1998, Protocol 1, Article 1).
• As long as his income/assets are legally acquired, voters cannot legally object to him residing in a manor versus a cottage.
• Moral outrage over taxpayers’ money is valid politically, but legally, there is no barrier unless unlawful enrichment is proven.

5. Continuity of Government

• Even if one PM is accused of misconduct, under UK law the continuity of government principle applies.
• Successor Prime Ministers are not legally bound to reopen inquiries unless Parliament compels it.
• Thus, the “lack of genuine independent inquiry” is a political failure of accountability, not a breach of law.

✅ In summary:
A Conservative voter could legally justify their choice to keep Boris Johnson in office on the grounds that:

• He was constitutionally entitled to serve as PM while commanding a majority.
• No criminal conviction or statutory disqualification removed him from office.
• Independent inquiries are a political, not legal, requirement unless Parliament mandates them.
• Ethical failures are enforceable by voters and Parliament, not by automatic legal sanction.

1. Parliamentary Sovereignty and Democratic Mandate

• In UK law, Parliament is sovereign. Voters elect MPs, and the largest party (or coalition) forms a government.
• A Prime Minister does not hold office by direct election, but by commanding a majority in the House of Commons.
• Boris Johnson, despite controversies, was lawfully appointed as PM by the Monarch (then Queen Elizabeth II) on the basis that he led the majority party.

👉 Justification for the voter: Casting a ballot for Johnson or his party was legally valid, because under the Representation of the People Act 1983 and constitutional convention, it is the voters’ right to return MPs who may then sustain him as Prime Minister.

2. Accountability Mechanisms Under UK Law

• Allegations of incompetence, dishonesty, or corruption do not automatically bar a person from office unless:
• They breach specific statutes (e.g., Bribery Act 2010, Misconduct in Public Office, Criminal Law).
• They are disqualified by the Representation of the People Act (e.g., bankruptcy restrictions, certain criminal convictions).
• Since Johnson was not convicted of disqualifying offences, legally he could remain an MP and Prime Minister.

👉 Justification: The legal system does not require an independent inquiry unless Parliament votes for one, or the government itself establishes one under the Inquiries Act 2005. A voter supporting him could argue: “It is within Parliament’s remit, not my personal vote, to decide inquiries.”

3. Prime Ministerial Conduct vs. Legal Standards

• Failures in “honesty and integrity” or “true public service” are political and ethical standards, not legal ones.
• The Ministerial Code sets rules for ministers, but it is not legally enforceable in courts — only politically enforceable, as it is overseen by the PM of the day.
• Thus, a Conservative voter could legally justify their choice by saying: “The law permits Boris Johnson to serve until removed by his party or the electorate.”
• “Alleged misconduct may be immoral, but it is not legally disqualifying.”

4. On Property & Lifestyle (Brightwell Manor vs. Cottage)

• Whatever Johnson’s residence or lifestyle, UK law protects property rights (Human Rights Act 1998, Protocol 1, Article 1).
• As long as his income/assets are legally acquired, voters cannot legally object to him residing in a manor versus a cottage.
• Moral outrage over taxpayers’ money is valid politically, but legally, there is no barrier unless unlawful enrichment is proven.

5. Continuity of Government

• Even if one PM is accused of misconduct, under UK law the continuity of government principle applies.
• Successor Prime Ministers are not legally bound to reopen inquiries unless Parliament compels it.
• Thus, the “lack of genuine independent inquiry” is a political failure of accountability, not a breach of law.

✅ In summary:
A Conservative voter could legally justify their choice to keep Boris Johnson in office on the grounds that:

• He was constitutionally entitled to serve as PM while commanding a majority.
• No criminal conviction or statutory disqualification removed him from office.
• Independent inquiries are a political, not legal, requirement unless Parliament mandates them.
• Ethical failures are enforceable by voters and Parliament, not by automatic legal sanction.

Why there could (or should) be legal or quasi-legal grounds for inquiry, sanction, or removal:

• From a critical perspective, one might argue that Boris Johnson (or any senior public official) should not be immune from investigation or accountability if serious misconduct is alleged. 
• Below are several legal or doctrinal bases for that view, and how they might have applied … or might still apply.

1. Misconduct in Public Office (common law offence)

The offence of Misconduct in Public Office (MiPO) is a common law criminal offence in England and Wales. Crown Prosecution Service+2Westlaw+2 Its elements generally require:

• A public officer (i.e. someone holding a public office.
• That the officer wilfully neglects to perform, or wilfully misconducts themselves in the office.
• The misconduct is serious, abusively, or a breach of the public’s trust.
• Without reasonable excuse or justification criminaldefencebarrister.co.uk+3Stuart Miller Solicitors+3Westlaw+3
• The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) guidance suggests such prosecutions should be reserved for serious misconduct with serious consequences. Stuart Miller Solicitors
• If a PM or minister were credibly alleged to have misused power (e.g. mis-allocation of funds, knowingly false statements causing loss to public purse) in a way meeting MiPO’s tests, a critic could argue there is the legal basis for criminal investigation or prosecution.

Limitation / counter to that argument:

• MiPO is notoriously narrow and conservative in application. Because it is a common law offence with no statutory definition, it has been criticised for lack of clarity and risk of being a “catch-all” offence. Law Commission+3GOV.UK+3Westlaw+3
• A private prosecution attempt was brought against Boris Johnson (Ball v Johnson) under MiPO, alleging that his “£350m/week” Brexit claim was a misuse of public office. The High Court dismissed it, finding the attempted summons was unlawfully issued. Wikipedia
• Because MiPO is common law, its thresholds are high, and obtaining decisive proof is difficult.
• Thus, a critic could argue Johnson’s alleged misdeeds should have been examined under MiPO (or a reformed version thereof) but concede that legal barriers and precedents make success challenging.

2. Misfeasance in Public Office (civil tort) / Administrative liability

• Misfeasance in public office is a civil action (a tort) against a public office holder for misuse or abuse of power that causes loss or damage to another. Wikipedia+2Saunders Law+2
• The claimant must generally show the office-holder acted unlawfully, knew that they were acting unlawfully, and knew or ought to have known that third parties would suffer loss as a result. Wikipedia+2Saunders Law+2
• This offers a route for civil liability (i.e. financial or injunctive remedy), even where criminal prosecution fails.
• A critic could argue that a minister or PM who knowingly allowed misappropriation or misuse of public funds could be sued by aggrieved parties under this tort, forcing accountability.

However, in practice:

1. Such cases are hard to bring, especially against very senior officials, due to issues like immunity, causation, standing and the complexity of proving bad faith or “targeted malice” vs ordinary errors. Wikipedia
2. Many alleged governmental failings are defended as policy decisions or legitimate discretion, not as abuse of power.

3. Judicial Review / Public Law Challenges

• Even if a criminal or civil route is difficult, critics can (and do) use judicial review to challenge acts of government, or the refusal to hold an inquiry, on public law grounds.
• For example: a decision by a minister not to establish a public inquiry could be challenged as irrational or unreasonable (Wednesbury unreasonableness) or failing to respect legitimate expectations or procedural fairness. 5 Essex Chambers+2House of Commons Library+2
• In R (on the application of Litvinenko) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2014), a court considered such issues (this was about establishing an inquiry relating to the death of Alexander Litvinenko). While not identical facts, the principle of challenging an inquiry decision is used. 5 Essex Chambers
• A critic might argue that the government’s refusal to initiate a fully independent public inquiry into Johnson’s alleged misconduct might have been subject to judicial review if argued as unreasonable or procedurally unfair.

4. Statutory, Parliamentary or Regulatory Sanctions / Oversight

• Some misconduct (especially financial mismanagement, misuse of public funds, or conflicts of interest) may attract statutory regimes or oversight bodies (e.g. the National Audit Office, the Public Accounts Committee, Parliamentary standards investigators, etc.)
• Parliament itself can discipline or remove MPs (via recall mechanisms, suspension, deselection) or pass motions compelling investigations or inquiries.
• A critic might argue that Parliament should have invoked those tools to demand an inquiry or to sanction Johnson, and that failure to do so is a political failing rather than a legal impossibility.

5. Principle of Rule of Law, Responsibility and Accountability

• Beyond specific statutes or common law causes, a critic might appeal to constitutional principles: in a democracy, senior officials should not be above oversight, accountability, or remedy.
• If Johnson’s actions involved fraud, corruption, or breach of trust, then principles of public law argue he should be answerable, even if the practical route is difficult.

Comparison & Reconciliation with the “Voter’s Legal Justification”:

• When we juxtapose the voter’s justification (that Johnson had a lawful mandate and that no legal prohibition prevented inquiry) with the critic’s arguments (that there should be mechanisms for accountability), we get the following balance:

Legal Basis: Mechanism // Strength for Critic’s View // Weakness / Barrier // Interaction with Voter’s Justification

• Misconduct in Public Office (criminal) : There is a legal basis for prosecuting serious abuse by officials // High proof burden, uncertain scope, infrequently used // The voter’s view relies on absence of conviction/disqualification; critic argues standards are too lax
• Misfeasance in Public Office (civil): Provides a civil remedy route when criminal fails // Difficult to bring against senior officials, causation & proof issues // The voter’s view holds that unless a legal liability is established, no action is mandatory
• Judicial Review: Inquiry challenge / Can force or compel inquiry or scrutiny of document disclosure // Courts tend to defer on political questions, remedy limited to quashing or requiring reconsideration //  The voter’s view assumes ministerial discretion is lawfully exercised
• Parliamentary: oversight mechanisms /  Parliament and its committees have powers to demand accountability or set up inquiries //  Political will, party discipline, procedural constraints // Voter’s view can argue that such mechanisms remain at the discretion of Parliament
• Constitutional Rule of Law principles: Even absent perfect legal tools, principle demands accountability // Principles alone do not create judicially enforceable rights // Voter’s justification is “legal permissibility,” not “ideal accountability”

Sources (for both the original justification and the counterargument):

• CPS guidance on Misconduct in Public Office (definition & elements) Crown Prosecution Service
• Law Commission discussions on reform of MiPO Law Commission+1
• Parliamentary Commons Library briefing on Statutory inquiries / Inquiries Act 2005 House of Commons Library+2Research Briefings+2
• Legislation.gov.uk, Inquiries Act 2005 (especially section 2, “no determination of liability”) Legislation.gov.uk+2Legislation.gov.uk+2
• Explanatory notes to Inquiries Act and commentary about limits (cannot determine civil/criminal liability) Legislation.gov.uk
• Parliamentary and legal commentary on ministerial discretion and establishment of inquiries (5 Essex Chambers, etc.) 5 Essex Chambers
• Discussion of non-statutory vs statutory inquiries, their powers, and limitations Institute for Government+2House of Commons Library+2
• Ball v Johnson case (attempted private prosecution) Wikipedia
• Misfeasance in Public Office (civil tort) overview Wikipedia+2Saunders Law+2
• Critiques of MiPO’s lack of clarity and calls for reform Spotlight on Corruption+3GOV.UK+3Law Commission+3
• Relevant case law (e.g. R v Dytham regarding misconduct by omission) Wikipedia

A legal case against Johnson could theoretically involve:

(1) how a prosecuting authority is building a case and

(2) comparing how the USA is currently pursuing stronger checks against the convicted felon and most likely sex offender President Donald Trump and how the UK might achieve renewal again with all citations and sources

Part 1: Possible Case Against Boris Johnson (UK)

• This is speculative, to show how a prosecuting authority might try to build a case of serious misconduct, corruption or misuse of office, given the current UK law plus proposed “National Renewables”.

A. Legal Tools that Could Be Used

• Misconduct in Public Office (common law offence)
• This is an offence that may apply to public officials who wilfully neglect duties or wilfully misconduct themselves, in a manner that is an abuse of the public’s trust, without reasonable excuse. Law Commission+1
• Misfeasance in Public Office (civil tort) Victims can bring a civil action if there is wrongful misuse of power by a public office holder, causing loss or damage. Wikipedia+1

Statutory offences

• Other relevant laws might include bribery, fraud, offences under the Bribery Act 2010, etc., if the alleged misconduct involves financial gain or deceptive misuse of funds. Wikipedia+1

Parliamentary oversight / inquiries

• Even if criminal or civil cases are difficult, Parliamentary Select Committees, the Public Accounts Committee, or an independent public inquiry could investigate, document failures, recommend reforms, possibly influence criminal or regulatory bodies. Also the Inquiries Act 2005 provides for statutory inquiries. GOV.UK+2Law Commission+2
• Judicial Review / duty of candour / transparency duties: Could challenge government decisions to withhold documents, to refuse inquiries, or hide information; seek legal obligation to be transparent under public law. The duty of candour is part of recent reforms in some sectors. Wikipedia+1

Proposed renewals

• The Law Commission has proposed replacing the common law offence of misconduct in public office with two new statutory offences: (i) corruption in public office, (ii) breach of duty in public office. These would define public office positions, set clearer standards, and require consent of DPP for prosecutions. Law Commission+2GOV.UK+2
• Also, there is a Public Office (Accountability) Bill 2025 (aka “Hillsborough Law”) which, when enacted, aims to create a duty of transparency / candour, offences for misleading the public, and abolish the common law offence, replacing it with these statutory ones. Parliamentary Bills+2Kingsley Napley+2

B. How a Prosecutor Might Assemble the Case

Allegation: Legal Offence / Mechanism // Key Elements to Prove / Potential Evidence / Legal Defences / Hurdles

• Misuse of public funds: e.g., claiming expenses such as golden ‘aka Trump’ wallpaper, cosmetic decorations not legitimately incurred for public duty; or misreporting/documenting costs to benefit personally /Offences under fraud / false accounting / bribery / misappropriation
• Intent to deceive: that funds were misused for private benefit; documentation showing falsification; authority of claimant (Johnson) to authorize expense claims / Financial records (invoices, expense reports); internal memos/emails; witness testimony; audit trails; bank transfers; comparison with standard practice / Statute of limitations; that expenses were within legal/allowed bounds; that he believed claims were valid; lack of criminal intent; small amounts or technical non-compliance
• Neglect/incompetence harming public interest (e.g., policy failures leading to National and/or Individual’s harm by ‘Brexit’ and lies to fishing people.) / Misconduct in Public Office; possible breach of duty statute (if reforms in place) /  That he held public office; that he wilfully neglected or misconducted; degree of neglect is serious; that there was abuse of trust; no reasonable excuse / Expert reports; testimony from affected bodies; documents showing repeated warnings of risk; internal communications; public reports or audits showing harm / That policy decisions are discretionary; that mistakes or poor judgement are not automatically misconduct; proving wilfulness; proving substantial degree of harm
• Misleading Parliament: public (e.g., claims known false, to mislead public or Parliament such as ‘Partygate’ ‘Russian Partygate’ implementing in full his own Intelligence Service ‘Russia Report’) / Possibly perjury (if under oath), or false statements offences, or Misconduct in Public Office; maybe offences under law about misleading public (if new laws allow) / That false statements were made knowingly; that they were material; that they caused loss or damage; that defendant was aware; link with official duty / Speeches, written statements; internal records contradicting public claims; email chains; witness statements; timelines; e.g. in “Ball v Johnson” concerning Brexit claim. Law Commission+1 / Defence might be no knowledge, honest belief, vagueness of statement; distinguishing opinion from fact; proving causation of damage; complexity of public communication context
• Failure to prevent harm: e.g. death of Dawn Sturgess, ignoring warnings of a cost of living climate crisis and Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine leading to deaths/damage / Under proposed “breach of duty in public office” offence (once enacted) / That the office included a duty to prevent serious harm; that that duty was breached recklessly or intentionally; degree far below reasonable standard; foreseeability of harm / Internal risk assessments; memos; testimonies; audits; public or parliamentary inquiries showing warnings were made; statistical or expert evidence of harm; correspondence showing ignored warnings / Defence might claim mitigating circumstances, no knowledge, resource constraints, legal or policy constraints; proving standard of care; proving recklessness rather than oversight or error

Using those tools, the prosecutor would need to build evidence and legal argument along these lines:

C. Real-World Example Steps

To make this concrete, imagine the following pattern:

Gather evidence

1. Financial audits show expenses or contracts awarded improperly.
2. Internal memos/emails show warnings rejected or ignored.
3. Speeches/statements made to Parliament or the public contradict internal documents

Investigation

The National Audit Office or Parliamentary Committee investigates procurement, contracts.

Decision by Prosecutor

If sufficient evidence of serious misconduct or fraud, refer to CPS (or appropriate prosecuting body).

Trial / Court Process

1. Charge offences; conduct trial, present documents, witness evidence.
2. The judge/jury must be persuaded beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases.
3. If civil case, on balance of probabilities.

Remedies / Sanctions

1. Criminal conviction (fines, imprisonment if appropriate).
2. Civil damages.
3. Removal from office (political consequences).
4. Parliamentary sanctions.
5. Renewal of system (e.g., stricter ethics oversight, duty of candour law etc.).

D. Obstacles to Successful Prosecution Against Boris Johnson:

1. Proving wilfulness vs negligence or poor judgement.
2. Statute of limitations might prevent some claims.
3. Discretion/policy decisions: many failures are defended as policy or decisions under uncertainty.
4. Political influence: prosecutors are independent but political pressure can impact resources and priority.
5. The current common law offence of misconduct in public office is vague; uncertainty about what counts as “public office”, what behaviour is serious enough. So even with good evidence, courts may find the law unclear. GOV.UK+1

Part 2: U.S. System: Donald Trump — How Checks Are Actually Working (or Being Built)

• Outlining how the U.S. has, in practice, used legal and constitutional mechanisms to hold Donald Trump to account and how that compares/contrasts with the UK, focusing on relevant legal instruments, and what has been done.

A. Key U.S. Cases & Legal Mechanisms Against Trump

1. New York State: People v. Trump – Hush Money Trial
2. Trump was tried and convicted in New York (June-2024) on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. Prosecutors alleged he misclassified payments to Michael Cohen (who paid Stormy Daniels silence money) as legal expenses, and that this falsification was done with intent to commit or conceal another crime (election law violations, tax violations). BBC+3Wikipedia+3Politico+3
3. Verdict: Guilty on all counts. Date: 30 May 2024. The jury, witnesses, and documents were critical. Wikipedia+1
4. Sentencing: He received an unconditional discharge (meaning convicted but no jail time, etc.). That still makes him a convicted felon under NY law. AP News+
5. Supreme Court Ruling: Trump v. United States – Presidential Immunity for Official Acts
6. On 1 July 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6-3 majority opinion in Trump v. United States, regarding whether a president has immunity from prosecution for actions taken while in office. CNBC+2Congress.gov+2

The Court held:

• Former presidents have absolute immunity for acts that fall within their "core constitutional duties" / exclusive constitutional authority. CNBC+1
• At least presumptive immunity for other official acts within the “outer perimeter” of official responsibilities. CNBC+1
• No immunity for unofficial acts (private acts). CNBC+1
• This ruling means some of the charges related to official acts may be immune; parts not tied to official acts may still proceed. Congress.gov+2CNBC+2

Other lawsuits / civil cases

• Thompson v. Trump — a civil case brought by the U.S. House of Representatives against Trump for his alleged role in causing/conspiring in the January 6 attack; in that case, courts have found he is not immune from civil liability in that context. Wikipedia

B. Strengths of the U.S. Approach

• Multiple jurisdictions: State and federal, which gives more flexibility. Even if immunity applies at the federal level for certain acts, state prosecutions may still proceed for state-law crimes.
• Criminal indictments & trials: The New York case is real, with jury trials and witnesses.
• Judicial precedent clarifying immunity limits: Supreme Court ruling gives a framework for when immunity applies, which helps define what counts as “official acts” vs “unofficial.”
• Separation of powers and constitutional checks: Impeachment (political) vs criminal prosecution (legal) are both tools.

C. Weaknesses / Challenges in the U.S.

• Immunity rulings can shield significant wrongdoing if it is deemed “official power.”
• Results like unconditional discharge reduce the practical consequences of convictions.
• Political polarisation can influence investigations, prosecutions and sentencing.
• Appeals, delays: U.S. legal processes can be drawn out and outcomes are often subject to further litigation.

Part 3: How the UK Might Achieve “National Renewal” 

Based on both the hypothetical case and what has happened in the U.S., here are possible “National Renewals” (some of which are already in discussion or draft) that could strengthen accountability in the UK.

1. Possible Legal Reforms

• Statutory offence(s) replacing Misconduct in Public Office
• As proposed by the Law Commission: two offences, corruption in public office and breach of duty in public office, with clear definitions of what constitutes “public office”, what duties are, what behaviour is criminal. Law Commission+1
• Setting fixed maximum sentences to provide clarity (the Commission suggested 10-14 years for serious misconduct). Law Commission+1

2, Duty of candour / legal obligation for transparency

• Requirement that public officials must be truthful in inquiries, investigations, to Parliament, etc. Possibly criminal sanctions for failure to do so. This is under discussion (e.g. Public Office (Accountability) Bill) and also proposals like the “Hillsborough Law” (if brought forward). Parliamentary Bills+1

3. Independent ethics oversight

• A body independent of the Prime Minister with actual power to investigate ministers; sanctions; possibly enforcement rather than purely advisory. A legally binding ministerial code. (Currently the code is not judicially enforceable.) The Guardian

4. Clearer definitions & thresholds

• Define what “public office” means; define what level of neglect or misconduct is criminal vs disciplinary; set thresholds for seriousness; provide for reasonable defences (including public interest or honest error) but ensure wilfulness or recklessness can be punished. The Law Commission recommendations include this. GOV.UK+1

5. Better whistle-blower protection & funding for inquiry participation

• Ensuring that those who expose wrongdoing are protected; enabling victims or affected parties to participate meaningfully in inquiries; financial support for legal representation in inquiries/investigations. The Public Office (Accountability) Bill (2025) aims to extend representation funding for participants. Kingsley Napley

6. Stronger enforcement by independent bodies

• Make the Ministerial Code or its successor legally binding; have external oversight (judges, independent ethics commissioners) rather than relying purely on political policing.
• Give prosecuting authorities (e.g. CPS) clear statutory mandates and protections for investigating senior officials.

B. Comparative Insights / UK-vs-U.S.

Feature: U.S. System (as seen in Trump cases) UK System (current, including proposed reforms) / What UK Could Adopt or Improve

State / local prosecutions: States like New York can bring prosecutions for state law violations even when federal immunity might shield some actions. The UK doesn't have states in the same way, but devolved nations have some powers; generally prosecutions against the PM or ministers are national. Ensure that regional / devolved jurisdictions or local authorities have power to initiate investigations if relevant; perhaps more decentralization of oversight.

Immunity limits clarified by case law: Trump v. United States clarified that immunity is not blanket, it has tiers: “core”; “official” acts; “unofficial.” CNBC+2American Civil Liberties Union+2 UK’s common law misconduct offence lacks clarity about these tiers; reforms seek to define scope more precisely. GOV.UK+2Law Commission+2 Enact the Law Commission’s reforms; ensure that legislation establishes what is “public office”, what duties, what acts are official vs outside scope etc.

Criminal trial & jury: The hush money case was tried before a jury in state court; evidence, witnesses, records. The UK has criminal trials of ministers or former ministers in principle, but rare; many misconduct allegations are handled internally, by Parliament, or via disciplinary/ethics review. Strengthen capacity and political will for criminal prosecutions when clear legal standards are not met; reduce reliance on internal disciplinary or political processes alone.

Political tools (impeachment / removal): The U.S. has impeachment for high crimes / misdemeanors, but also legal proceedings in parallel or subsequently. The UK lacks the equivalent of impeachment for PM; removal depends largely on party/internal mechanisms, no formal parliamentary removal procedure outside votes of no confidence etc. Possibly formalise stronger parliamentary accountability, e.g. more robust votes of no confidence, perhaps codify misconduct consequences, or constitutional/political immunity limits.

Transparency, public participation: Courts are open, trials are public, media coverage, public records; civil cases allow participation. The UK has inquiries, but sometimes limited powers; some political resistance to full disclosure. Expand inquiry powers; make duty of transparency/candour legally enforceable; ensure affected parties are able to participate; perhaps live-reporting or public access reforms.

Comparison Table:

Mechanism: 

• UK Now
• USA Now 
• UK After “National Renewal”

Criminal Liability

• Outdated common law “Misconduct in Public Office” (rarely used, vague thresholds).
• Federal/state statutes for corruption, obstruction, fraud (regularly enforced).
• Clear statutory offences: Corruption in Public Office & Breach of Duty in Public Office with defined penalties.

Independent Prosecutor

• CPS under Attorney General’s political oversight; no dedicated office for PM/ministers.
• Independent prosecutors, Special Counsel, federal grand juries can indict former presidents.
• Special Prosecutions Office independent of Attorney General, empowered to indict PM and ministers.

Duty of Candour

• No statutory obligation to tell the truth to Parliament or inquiries.
• Stronger perjury/obstruction laws at federal/state level, enforceable in Congress investigations.
• Statutory Duty of Candour: criminal offence to mislead inquiries or Parliament.

Ethics Enforcement

• The Ministerial Code is non-statutory, enforced at PM’s discretion.
• Multiple bodies: Office of Government Ethics, Inspectors General, Congressional oversight.
• Independent Integrity & Ethics Commission with statutory powers, sanctions, referrals.

Inquiry Powers

• Inquiries Act 2005 can compel evidence but no automatic prosecution referral.
• Congressional hearings, federal commissions with subpoena powers.
• Inquiries Act amended for automatic referral of misconduct to prosecutors.

Public Trust Safeguard

• No independent mechanism to ensure systemic accountability; trust depends on politics.
• Constitutional checks & balances; impeachment, judicial review.
• Statutory framework ensuring no one is above the law, independent oversight built-in.

Main sources used for all the above:

• UK Law Commission: Misconduct in Public Office final recommendations, 4 December 2020. GOV.UK+2Law Commission+2
• Law Commission consultation, Reforming the offence of misconduct in public office. Law Commission+1
• Public Office (Accountability) Bill 2025 (UK) – details of what it would do. Parliamentary Bills+1
• UK recent reforms:- police accountability, duty of candour (Scotland Act), etc. Wikipedia+2GOV.UK+2
• Bribery Act 2010. #ChatGPT: Wikipedia
• U.S. Supreme Court case Trump v. United States on immunity. CNBC+2Congress.gov+2
• New York hush money trial: indictment, trial and verdict reports. The Guardian+4Wikipedia+4Politico+4

Outline of Hypothetical Charges Against Boris Johnson (what a UK prosecuting authority might attempt, given existing legal frameworks).

• Draft Indictment (as if formally worded in court papers, using CPS/UK Crown Court style).
• Simulated Legal Arguments (prosecution vs. defence, showing how each side would frame the case)

⚠️ Note: This is a hypothetical legal exercise. It is not a statement of fact or allegation. Johnson has not been convicted of these offences.

1. Possible Legal Grounds for Charges

A prosecuting authority might examine the following:

Misconduct in Public Office

• Common law offence. Applies when a public officer wilfully neglects duty, or misconducts themselves to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust.
• Potential basis: Misrepresentation during COVID contract procurement; misleading Parliament about lockdown breaches (“Partygate”).
• Source: CPS Guidance – Misconduct in Public Office.

Fraud Act 2006 (s.2 – False Representation)

• If misleading statements caused financial loss or gain.
• Potential basis: False claims to Parliament/public about public spending use (e.g., COVID contracts, £350m/week NHS Brexit claim).
• Source: Fraud Act 2006.

Bribery Act 2010

• Receiving advantage in connection with official functions.
• Potential basis: Alleged favours to political donors, e.g., appointments, peerages.
• Source: Bribery Act 2010.

Misuse of Public Funds

• Covered by the Theft Act 1968 (s.17 false accounting, s.1 theft) if personal enrichment is shown.
• Potential basis: Taxpayer-funded renovations at Downing Street, allegedly outside permitted allowances.

2. Draft Hypothetical Indictment

• Filed in the Crown Court of England and Wales
• The Crown v. Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson

Count 1 – Misconduct in Public Office (Common Law)
Between July 2019 and September 2022, being a public officer, namely Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson wilfully neglected to perform his duty and wilfully misconducted himself to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust without reasonable excuse or justification, by:

• Knowingly misleading the House of Commons about breaches of COVID-19 lockdown rules at 10 Downing Street;
• Failing to act with honesty and integrity in the award of public contracts relating to COVID-19 procurement;
• Using public funds for the refurbishment of the Downing Street residence in excess of authorised allowances.

Count 2 – Fraud by False Representation (Fraud Act 2006, s.2)
On diverse dates between 2016 and 2020, the defendant dishonestly made false representations to the public, intending to secure political advantage and/or financial benefit, namely by asserting that the United Kingdom sent £350 million per week to the European Union to be redirected to the NHS, knowing such representation to be misleading.

Count 3 – Bribery (Bribery Act 2010, s.2)
Between 2019 and 2022, the defendant, being a public official, improperly performed a relevant function by offering or confirming public honours and peerages to individuals who had provided financial or political support to the Conservative Party, intending thereby to induce continued advantage for himself and his party.

3. Simulated Legal Arguments

Prosecution Case

• On Misconduct: Johnson had a duty of candour to Parliament and the public. His repeated denials of unlawful gatherings at Downing Street amount to wilful deceit. This is analogous to the case of Attorney General’s Reference (No.3 of 2003), where public deception amounted to misconduct.
• On Fraud: The £350m NHS bus claim was made with knowledge that the figure was grossly misleading, with intent to secure a political result (referendum outcome) conferring tangible political advantage.
• On Bribery: Honours allegedly offered to donors go beyond political patronage and constitute “improper performance” under the Bribery Act 2010, as seen in precedents involving “cash-for-honours” scandals investigated under police authority.

Defence Case

• On Misconduct: The Prime Minister acted on advice, did not personally draft all statements, and believed them accurate at the time. Errors were political failings, not criminal misconduct. Misconduct in public office requires a serious departure from duty—political misjudgment does not suffice.
• On Fraud: Political campaign slogans are protected as political speech, not subject to fraud law. Courts have historically been reluctant to criminalise campaign exaggeration (cf. R (Ball) v. Johnson [2019], where a private prosecution was struck out).
• On Bribery: Political honours lists are lawful under the Life Peerages Act 1958. Unless a direct quid pro quo financial arrangement is proven beyond doubt, political patronage is not bribery.

Comparative Note (UK vs USA re Trump)

US Context: Donald Trump faces criminal indictments under federal and state law (e.g., election subversion, hush-money fraud, classified documents). The US system allows state prosecutors and grand juries to indict even a former president.

• Sources: DOJ Special Counsel – Trump Indictments, NY DA case – People v. Trump.

UK Context: 

• The UK lacks direct criminal accountability mechanisms for misconduct in office by a Prime Minister. Removal is political, via Parliament or party. Criminal action would require CPS or police investigation, rarely pursued.
• “National Renewal” proposals: stronger independent ethics watchdog (e.g., statutory version of Independent Adviser on Ministerial Interests), codification of Ministerial Code into law, automatic inquiries under the Inquiries Act 2005 for major misconduct.

📌 Citations & Sources 

• CPS: Misconduct in Public Office Guidance
• UK Statutes: Fraud Act 2006, Bribery Act 2010, Theft Act 1968
• Case Law: R (Ball) v Johnson [2019] EWHC 1832 (Admin) (Brexit bus claim case struck out)
• US DOJ: Special Counsel Trump Cases
• Manhattan DA: People v. Trump filings

Draft UK-style constitutional reform proposal to strengthen accountability of senior public officials

• A concrete, legally framed “National Renewal” package the UK could adopt — modelled on best practice, informed by recent Law Commission proposals and by comparative features of U.S. practice (e.g., state prosecutions, independent special counsel, clearer immunity limits). 
• For each major reform element: 
• (A) what to change, 
• (B) how it would work in practice (draft statutory/operational language), and (C) why it matters. Sources included after each section.

1) Replace the opaque common-law offence of “Misconduct in Public Office” with two clear statutory offences

Implement the Law Commission recommendation: 

• (1) Corruption in Public Office (serious, intentional abuse for private gain) and
• (2) Breach of Duty in Public Office (wilful or reckless breaches of statutory/constitutional duties causing serious harm). 
• Abolish the ambiguous common-law offence and set defined elements, mens rea (Latin for "guilty mind") and maximum penalties.

Draft wording (illustrative):

Corruption in Public Office — A person who holds public office commits an offence if, dishonestly and for the purpose of obtaining a financial or other significant advantage, they (a) perform a function improperly, or (b) solicit, accept or agree to accept an advantage as consideration for improperly performing a public function. Maximum penalty: 14 years’ imprisonment.

Breach of Duty in Public Office — A person who holds public office commits an offence if they wilfully or recklessly fail to perform a duty of their office, and that failure is a gross departure from the standards reasonably expected, causing or risking serious public harm. Maximum penalty: 7 years’ imprisonment.

How it helps: Clarifies thresholds (intent vs reckless breach), reduces uncertainty that now makes prosecutions rare, and aligns criminal law with modern public expectations of accountability. See Law Commission reforms. Law Commission+1

2) Enact a statutory Duty of Candour & Assistance for public officials and public authorities

Requiring truthful disclosure and cooperation with statutory and non-statutory inquiries, coroner investigations, select committee evidence, and auditors. Failure to comply would be a criminal offence (with defences for genuine legal privilege, national security properly invoked with judicial oversight).

Draft wording (illustrative):

Duty of Candour — A public official or public authority must, when lawfully requested, disclose documents and truthful oral evidence relevant to official investigations or inquiries, unless disclosure is prohibited by law or a court order. Knowing or reckless breaches of the duty without reasonable excuse is an offence (maximum 2 years’ imprisonment / fine).

How it helps: Prevents stonewalling and document destruction, ensuring inquiries can reach fact-findings that underpin criminal or civil action. This is a central element of the Public Office (Accountability) Bill proposals. Kingsley Napley+1

3) Create an Independent Integrity & Ethics Commission (IIEC) with investigative and enforcement powers

A statutory, independent commission (appointed by an enhanced public appointments process and removable only for cause) to:

• Investigate ministers, senior civil servants, and appointment decisions;
• Open inquiries on its own initiative;
• Publish findings and recommend sanctions (including referral to CPS, disqualification, or recommending recall petitions);
• Issue binding advisory opinions on conflicts of interest and a register of interests with enforcement teeth.

Operational features (illustrative):

• Powers to compel documentary evidence and sworn testimony (subject to safeguards).
• Power to impose administrative sanctions (rebuke, suspension of ministerial pay, referral for recall, debarment from public appointments).
• Transparent publication of investigation reports and summary redactions only for legitimate national security reasons subject to judicial review.
• How it helps: Moves enforcement out of the Prime Minister’s private discretion (current adviser to the PM) into an external body — like independent ethics commissioners in Canada and proposed models in the UK. See Institute for Government proposals and comparative studies. Institute for Government+1

4) Make the Ministerial Code (or an enhanced successor) statutory and enforceable

The Ministerial Code should be placed on a statutory footing, enforced by the IIEC rather than solely at the PM’s discretion.

Draft wording (illustrative):

• The Ministerial Code shall be a statute and breaches may be investigated by the Independent Integrity & Ethics Commission which may impose sanctions and publish findings.
• How it helps: Removes the conflict of interest where the Prime Minister polices ministers (including themselves). Parliamentary complaints would be triaged to the independent body. See cross-party proposals for an integrity commission. Institute for Government+1

5) Strengthen prosecutorial independence & create a Special Prosecutions Office for senior officeholders

• Establish an independent office (analogous to a special counsel or independent prosecutor) with statutory power to investigate and prosecute allegations involving prime ministers, senior ministers, or complex constitutional matters. 
• The Attorney General should not have sole control over decisions to prosecute such senior figures; instead the SPO can act where conflicts or public interest concerns exist.
• How it helps: Reduces real/potential interference in politically sensitive investigations and gives operational clarity for investigation of senior officials. The U.S. model (special counsel, state prosecutors) shows how decentralised jurisdiction and independent prosecutors can function. See DOJ Special Counsel reports and NY county DA practice. Department of Justice+1

6) Expand powers and reach of public inquiries and permit findings to trigger automatic prosecutorial reviews

Amend the Inquiries Act 2005 to:

• Require inquiry panels to transmit relevant findings and evidence automatically to the SPO (or CPS) for review where potential criminality is found;
• Allow inquiries to make findings of fact that form admissible envelopes for subsequent criminal or civil litigation (subject to fair trial protections);
• Broaden inquiry powers for compelled disclosure, subject to judicial oversight on national security redactions.
• Why: Currently inquiries cannot determine civil/criminal liability and often produce findings that prosecutors must re-investigate from scratch. Automatic referral and accepting certain factual findings for use in prosecutions (with procedural safeguards) would speed accountability. See criticisms of Inquiries Act limitations. Legislation.gov.uk+2Legislation.gov.uk+2

7) Improve whistleblower protections, evidence-preservation and audit trails

Create statutory safe harbour for public sector whistleblowers (strengthened protections, faster injunctive relief), introduce evidentiary preservation orders (criminal penalties for destruction of relevant records), and fund independent forensic audits for major procurements.

How it helps: Whistleblowers and preserved documents are often the decisive evidence in misconduct or fraud cases (see NY Trump prosecution reliant on documents, invoices, witness testimony). Stronger protections would improve evidence flow and trust. Manhattan District Attorney's Office+1

8) Parliamentary Mechanisms: codify a clear route to removal or interim suspension for serious misconduct. Establish statutory procedures so that where the IIEC or SPO finds credible, serious misconduct, Parliament can:

• Fast-track a vote of no confidence or an interim suspension mechanism for ministers during active criminal investigations; and
• Mandate by statute that party whips cannot block a free vote on ministerial misconduct allegations in specified circumstances.
• How it helps: Adds a democratic check aligned with legal findings and prevents political shielding of accused officials. This balances the rule of law with Parliamentary sovereignty.

9) Transitional / Safeguards: protect legitimate executive function & national security

All reforms must include carefully drafted carve-outs and judicial review to protect legitimate executive privilege (national security, sensitive diplomacy). But carve-outs should be narrow, time-limited, and require judicial authorisation (e.g., a judge signs off on a redaction claim).

How it helps: Preserves government function while preventing abuse of secrecy to avoid accountability. Referencing U.S. immunity jurisprudence, the reform must prevent a blanket shield for official acts. See Trump v. United States on immunity limits and the need to define official acts. Supreme Court+1

10) Comparative mechanisms to borrow from the U.S. model

Multiple jurisdictions / decentralised prosecution: 

• Encourage devolved / local prosecutorial teams to have jurisdictional reach for regional wrongdoing; 
• allocate resources to county-level DAs where appropriate. (U.S. state prosecutions of Trump show parallel venues can succeed). Manhattan District Attorney's Office+1
• Special counsel model: A statutory SPO (see §5 above) that can be triggered automatically by IIEC recommendations or by a certain threshold of Parliamentary vote. Department of Justice

Implementation 'Roadmap' (short)

• Immediate (6–12 months): Pass a Duty of Candour statute; legislate whistleblower protections and records-preservation offences. (Fast track given public urgency.) Kingsley Napley
• Medium term (12–24 months): Enact statutory replacement of Misconduct in Public Office following Law Commission drafting; establish the Independent Integrity & Ethics Commission and make the Ministerial Code statutory. Law Commission+1
• Longer term (24+ months): Set up Special Prosecutions Office, amend Inquiries Act to create automatic referral mechanisms, and codify Parliamentary removal procedures. Legislation.gov.uk+1

Why this package is realistic and necessary

• The Law Commission has already shown the common-law offence is outdated and recommended reform — legislative change is feasible and already on the agenda. Law Commission+1
• The Public Office (Accountability) Bill (and similar manifestos) show political appetite for stricter duties of candour and accountability. LawNow+1
• Comparative practice (U.S. state prosecutions, independent special counsels) demonstrates that where independent prosecutorial routes exist, even senior figures can be investigated effectively while respecting legal safeguards. Manhattan District Attorney's Office+1

Primary sources & further reading (key citations)

• Law Commission — Misconduct in Public Office (project page & recommendations). Law Commission+1
• Public Office (Accountability) Bill 2025 — Explanatory notes / Bill text. UK Parliament+1
• Ministerial Code — GOV.UK. GOV.UK
• Inquiries Act 2005 — legislation and post-legislative scrutiny (limits on liability findings). Legislation.gov.uk+1
• Institute for Government — proposals for independent integrity oversight and reform of the ministerial code. Institute for Government
• Comparative ethics models (Canada, EU study on Independent Ethics Body). SeoUmbraco
• U.S. Special Counsel reports and Trump prosecutions (illustrative of special prosecutors, state prosecutions): DOJ Special Counsel Report (Smith), Manhattan D.A. press on NY conviction, and Supreme Court Trump v. United States (immunity ruling). Department of Justice+2Manhattan District Attorney's Office+2

Brief ‘Roadmap’:

• (A) Full statutory draft text of one of these proposals (e.g., the two new offences replacing MiPO) in bill form suitable for parliamentary drafting;
• (B) An impact assessment showing likely practical effects (number of cases, thresholds, defenses, judicial resource impacts); or
• (C) A short brief you can send to an MP or campaign group (one-page + talking points + citations).

(A) Full Statutory Draft Text (Illustrative Bill Extract)
Styled as if introduced in Parliament; shortened for clarity but uses the structure of a Public Bill.

• Public Office Accountability and Integrity Bill [2025]
• PART 1 — NEW OFFENCES RELATING TO PUBLIC OFFICE

Section 1 — Corruption in Public Office

A person commits an offence if, being a holder of public office—

• (a) they perform a function improperly with the intention of obtaining for themselves or another a financial or other significant advantage; or
• (b) they solicit, accept, or agree to accept such an advantage as consideration for improperly performing a function of their office.
• Improper performance is defined as conduct that constitutes a serious departure from the standards reasonably expected of a person in that office.
• Maximum penalty: 14 years’ imprisonment or unlimited fine.

Section 2 — Breach of Duty in Public Office

A person commits an offence if, being a holder of public office—

• (a) they wilfully or recklessly fail to perform a duty required by their office; and
• (b) that failure constitutes a gross breach of public trust and causes, or creates a significant risk of causing, serious public harm.
• Maximum penalty: 7 years’ imprisonment or unlimited fine.

Section 3 — Duty of Candour

Public officials and public authorities shall, when lawfully required, disclose documents and provide truthful evidence to—

• (a) public inquiries established under the Inquiries Act 2005;
• (b) Parliamentary select committees;
• (c) the Independent Integrity and Ethics Commission (established under Part 2 of this Act).
• Failure to comply, without reasonable excuse, constitutes an offence punishable by up to 2 years’ imprisonment.

PART 2 — THE INDEPENDENT INTEGRITY & ETHICS COMMISSION (IIEC)

Section 4 — Establishment

• There shall be established an Independent Integrity & Ethics Commission (“the Commission”), independent of government and Parliament.
• Commissioners shall be appointed by the Crown on the recommendation of a cross-party Parliamentary committee, with confirmation by resolution of the House of Commons.

Section 5 — Functions
The Commission shall:

• (a) Investigate allegations of breaches of the Ministerial Code and statutory duties under this Act;
• (b) Issue findings and impose administrative sanctions, including suspension of ministerial salary, debarment from public appointments, or referral to the Crown Prosecution Service or Special Prosecutions Office;
• (c) Publish annual reports on ministerial and senior official integrity.

Section 6 — Powers

The Commission shall have power to compel witnesses, documents, and evidence, subject to judicial review of national security claims.

PART 3 — SPECIAL PROSECUTIONS OFFICE

Section 7 — Establishment

A Special Prosecutions Office (SPO) shall be created as an independent prosecutorial body empowered to investigate and prosecute alleged criminal conduct by:

• (a) The Prime Minister, Ministers of the Crown, and Members of the House of Lords;
• (b) Senior civil servants (Permanent Secretary grade and above).
• The SPO shall operate independently of the Attorney General. Decisions to prosecute shall not require Attorney General consent.

Section 8 — Triggering Mechanism

A case may be referred to the SPO by—

• (a) the Independent Integrity & Ethics Commission;
• (b) a resolution of the House of Commons; or
• (c) the Director of Public Prosecutions.

(B) Impact Assessment (Summary)

• Policy objective: To strengthen accountability of senior public officials by replacing outdated offences, mandating candour, and establishing independent enforcement mechanisms.
• Problem with status quo: Misconduct in Public Office (common law) is vague, rarely prosecuted (Law Commission report, 2020).
• Ministerial Code is advisory and politically enforced, not legally binding.
• Prime Ministers currently act as their own judge in ethics matters.
• Inquiries Act 2005 lacks automatic referral to prosecutors.

Options considered:

• Status quo (do nothing).
• Non-statutory reforms (strengthening guidance).
• Full statutory reform (preferred).

Expected benefits:

• Increased public trust in politics and government integrity.
• Clearer thresholds for prosecution, reducing ambiguity and failed private prosecutions (e.g. R (Ball) v Johnson [2019]).
• Faster, more consistent accountability (independent commission and SPO with statutory powers).
• Alignment with international best practice (U.S., Canada, EU).

Expected costs:

• Establishment of Commission & SPO (~£20–30m annually, comparable to existing regulators such as the Electoral Commission).
• Increased investigatory and prosecutorial workload (approx. 10–20 cases annually expected, mostly advisory/administrative sanctions; fewer than 5 likely to proceed to criminal trial per year).

Risks:

• Politicisation of Commission appointments (mitigated by cross-party committee approval).
• Judicial review challenges to Commission decisions (mitigated by clear statutory safeguards).
• Perceived chilling effect on ministerial discretion (mitigated by high thresholds: “gross breach” / “serious public harm”).

Overall assessment:
Option 3 delivers strongest accountability gains at modest fiscal cost, with manageable legal risks.

(C) One-Page Brief (for MPs / Campaigners)

Title:

• Restoring Integrity: A Public Office Accountability & Integrity Bill for the UK

The problem:

• The UK’s laws on misconduct in office are outdated and unclear.
• The Prime Minister polices their own code of conduct.
• Inquiries lack teeth, and there is no independent body with power to hold ministers to account.
• Compared to the U.S., where even a former president faces criminal charges, the UK shields senior politicians from meaningful accountability.

The solution:

Replace the vague offence of “Misconduct in Public Office” with two clear statutory crimes:

1. Corruption in Public Office (intentional abuse for gain).
2. Breach of Duty in Public Office (reckless neglect causing serious harm).
3. Create a statutory Duty of Candour so ministers and civil servants must tell the truth to inquiries and Parliament.
4. Establish an Independent Integrity & Ethics Commission to enforce rules, not leave them to the PM’s discretion.
5. Set up a Special Prosecutions Office to investigate alleged crimes by ministers and senior officials independently of political control.
6. Strengthen the Inquiries Act so findings are automatically referred to prosecutors.

Why it matters:

• Restores trust in politics by ensuring no one is above the law.
• Prevents cover-ups like Partygate from being purely political scandals.
• Aligns the UK with international standards (Canada, U.S., EU).
• Gives Parliament and the people confidence that public funds and offices are used honestly.

Ask:

• Support the introduction of the Public Office Accountability & Integrity Bill.
• Commit to embedding integrity and accountability in law, not leaving them to political discretion.

Source: https://chatgpt.com/c/68dcada8-88f8-8333-8944-abba57e5341d

NOTE ‘It is crucial to exercise critical rationality and verify AI-generated reports because:

• AI can reproduce bias or errors from its training data or sources.
• Generated content may sound authoritative while being factually incorrect, misleading, or outdated.
• Nuance and context are often lost without human judgement.
• Verification ensures accountability, especially in political, legal, or scientific topics.
• Ethical responsibility demands users actively engage with sources to avoid spreading misinformation.Always cross-check claims with credible references and use AI as a tool, not an unquestioned authority.’ ChatGPT Llewelyn Pritchard 13 June 2025

Links

1. https://bsky.app/starter-pack/did:plc:4sivhpo2an6off6obxrbc3oo/3m2evswarrp2z  https://trumpsauthoritarianassault.blogspot.com/2025/10/strengthening-accountability-public.html https://bsky.app/starter-pack/did:plc:4sivhpo2an6off6obxrbc3oo/3m2cldovk2u2i https://affordabletravelbookstorereadact.blogspot.com/2025/10/strengthening-accountability-public.  html https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vSqvW5a9IaAGIG59laUrQlBXY7j1pKPL40d3iYb9_LcJWAyv-dwJOJ0ER-eMP3wu3IiaJoEYhp5xvKa/pub ⚖️ Strengthening Accountability: The Public Office Accountability and Integrity Bill as a Cure for Leadership Failure "Explore legal accountability of leadership: Johnson, Farage, Trump and the call for a Public Office Accountability Bill to anchor ethical governance and National Renewal." Description This Civic Empowerment Resource diagnoses the breakdown of political and legal accountability in modern democracies. It demonstrates how a prosecuting authority could build a case against failed leadership like Boris Johnson, contrasts with how the U.S. is holding Trump to account and shows how the UK can achieve genuine National Renewal through the proposed Public Office Accountability & Integrity Bill. It outlines a draft constitutional model to make senior officials — including prime ministers and presidents — transparent, accountable, and ethically bound to serve. Use this resource to advocate for binding reforms and rally public demand for integrity at the top. #NationalRenewal #PoliticalAccountability #LegalReform #Ethics #ChatGPTOpenSourceAI Llewelyn Pritchard 2 October 2025
2. https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vQa90nVi7YzKkwoQeqve-Ty5JacIzhYiNq1V18wmAglFcPbpX_gWM-zZNb4YuWTOZghCICO16DC6inF/pub 🔥 End fossil fuel finance now! Fight Trump’s assault on Earth & democracy with climate justice, Indigenous rights and moral action. Our future - and the planet - depends on it. 🌍✊ #ClimateJustice #IndigenousRights #StopTrump #ImprisonTrumpMuskAndCronies #ImpeachTrump #FossilFreeFuture #ConnectWithTheLand #DeepAiGeneratedImage #Perplexity Llewelyn Pritchard 2 July 2025 #RightsOfNature
3. https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vR-pzzppm6ARbgnrO6T420iz0iqOC5DzKPRJhEBK5bZ2258VbtyElYidtE3jqlqJu5OfeXG9YnxbP7X/pub 🌍 🌍 NEW! ALL CHANGE! Ethics-driven National Renewal: indigenous-led climate justice, Nature’s rights and civic empowerment to solve cost of living and climate crises now (short form) #ChatGPTOpenSourceAI Llewelyn Pritchard 2 October 2025 Description “This Civic Empowerment Resource argues that ethics is not optional but the only survival strategy to tackle the twin crises of climate breakdown and cost-of-living pressures. By advancing National Renewal—indigenous-led climate justice, binding environmental controls and Nature’s rights of personhood—leaders of corporations and governments can be held to account and redirected toward solutions that prioritise people and planet. Using insights from “One Crisis, Two Faces” and open-source AI, it shows how ethical governance can dismantle corruption, end elite impunity and deliver resilience, transparency, and justice right now."
4. https://bsky.app/starter-pack/did:plc:4sivhpo2an6off6obxrbc3oo/3m2aefezkyq26 https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vTaVm9X2LivXk3V9fxNVmnexgewgr-FbjZhmCi-m8as7zu84a3HqWsn8wG9Pye96jvY8HbCCCl27CN2/pub 🌍 NEW! ALL CHANGE! Ethics-driven National Renewal: indigenous-led climate justice, Nature’s rights and civic empowerment to solve cost of living and climate crises now. #EndCorruption #ActForPeopleAndPlanet! #ClimateJustice #CostOfLiving #Ethics #ChatGPTOpenSourceAI Llewelyn Pritchard 2 October 2025 Description “This Civic Empowerment Resource argues that ethics is not optional but the only survival strategy to tackle the twin crises of climate breakdown and cost-of-living pressures. By advancing National Renewal—indigenous-led climate justice, binding environmental controls and Nature’s rights of personhood—leaders of corporations and governments can be held to account and redirected toward solutions that prioritise people and planet. Using insights from “One Crisis, Two Faces” and open-source AI, it shows how ethical governance can dismantle corruption, end elite impunity and deliver resilience, transparency, and justice right now.”
5. https://affordabletravelbookstorereadact.blogspot.com/2025/09/one-crisis-two-faces-civic-empowerment.html https://quislingborisjohnson.blogspot.com/2025/09/one-crisis-two-faces-civic-empowerment.html https://trumpsauthoritarianassault.blogspot.com/2025/09/1crisis2faces-civic-empowerment.html https://bsky.app/starter-pack/did:plc:4sivhpo2an6off6obxrbc3oo/3lzqlku47v22q https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vT4GTmFyEhEPw6cyKZRVyOPRbP7ciH6VjQBuSbJBg2ErEs1wpfcR-ht0zMWcLdEHXmak_oXFs-tigwa/pub ‘‘One Crisis, Two Faces’ A Civic Empowerment Analytical Tool Linking Political Corruption, Climate Emergency and Cost of Living Crises Llewelyn Pritchard 26 September 2025 #OpenSourceAI #ChatGPT #Perplexity Description: ‘1Crisis2Faces’ provides a rigorous, evidence-based framework for analyzing the intersection of political corruption, leadership failures and global crises. Leveraging Civic Empowerment Resources (CER) and open-source AI insights from ChatGPT and Perplexity, it enables users to examine legal proofs, uncover cover-ups—including Trump and FBI Director Patel’s potential Epstein-related actions—and evaluate failed leadership (non-exclusive) by figures such as Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, Boris Johnson and Justin Trudeau. By connecting cost of living pressures with climate emergencies, this tool demonstrates why combating political corruption is essential for effective societal, environmental and economic resilience. CER users gain actionable insights, reliable evidence mapping, and a strategic methodology for civic accountability and climate-conscious decision-making.
6. https://trumpsauthoritarianassault.blogspot.com/2025/09/trumps-epstein-files-doj-memo-cover-up.html https://quislingborisjohnson.blogspot.com/2025/09/trumps-epstein-files-doj-memo-cover-up.html https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vT45IYCFeJNwmCYCQy_yJ7hIdhbJUX4fw_ATjbPYV2Jt-sXUNl9pNJja4HJTJcYEyrn59rnhpjunWrc/pub Trump’s Epstein Files: DOJ Memo & Cover-Up Evidence. Explore the DOJ FBI July 2025 memo, Epstein files, Maxwell logs, and Trump’s alleged cover-up. Federal review reveals no incriminating client list. #OpenSourceChatGPT Llewelyn Pritchard 25 September 2025 #TrumpEpsteinfilescover-up #JeffreyEpsteinscandal #DOJFBIJuly2025memo #NoIncriminatingClientList #GhislaineMaxwelllogs #EliteConnections #FederalInvestigation #EpsteinCaseAnalysis
7. https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vReVaNilKC6lgezp3f9aXsiZDnQsYPYKTbsdVjD1V2-rj7MmYOwY2Gw0qflERYuzJl5rVprz-640g5t/pub Check out this ECOLOGICAL, CLIMATE-HEALTH ACTION NETWORK FOR MOTHER EARTH 'Powerful Pack' (50501) of ‪Llewelyn Pritchard's @llewelynpritchard.bsky.social‬ ‘regenerated’ list of Bluesky Starter Packs: ‘Hi there to all my 27000+ followers on my only other Bluesky account. I'm regenerating here after a damned Russian hack of @llewelynpritch.bsky.social!