What is misconduct in a public office - and could Mandelson end up in court?

Peter Mandelson is being investigated by police over allegations of misconduct in a public office following the latest release of Epstein files.

Emails released by the US Justice Department appear to show conversations between the ex-cabinet minister and the paedophile financier about political matters.

Ella Marriott, a commander in the Metropolitan Police, said it had received “a number of reports into alleged misconduct in public office including a referral from the UK government”.

She said the Met will “continue to assess all relevant information brought to our attention as part of this investigation“.

Tap here for the latest on the Epstein files

The former US ambassador has not responded to the latest allegations but has stepped down from the House of Lords.

He has previously expressed regret about his past ties to Epstein, and in a recent interview with The Times described Epstein as “muck that you can’t get off your shoe” and referred to a “handful of misguided historical emails, which I deeply regret sending”.

What is misconduct in a public office?

Misconduct in a public office refers to “serious wilful abuse or neglect” of powers relating to the role in public office, according to the Crown Prosecution Service.

Joshua Rozenberg, a legal commentator, told Sky News that it is an “unusual” offence “because it’s one created by the judges, laid down by the courts over many years”.

“For that reason, there isn’t actually a maximum penalty at all. It’s life imprisonment because parliament has never actually set a maximum.”

Due to the “complicated” nature of the offence, Mr Rozenberg said the government is trying to replace it with a new law, the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, which is currently going through parliament.

Part of the bill covers misconduct in public office, stating that a person commits an offence if they use “their office to obtain a benefit, whether for themselves or somebody else, or to cause somebody else to suffer a detriment”.

What we know about the allegations

The Cabinet Office said on 3 February that it had passed material to the police after an initial review of the newly released documents found they contained “likely market-sensitive information” and official handling safeguards had been “compromised”.

Emails released in the Epstein files from 2009 appear to show that Lord Mandelson shared sensitive information on at least four occasions.

Tap to follow Cheat Sheet here

At the time he was business secretary in Gordon Brown’s government, which was dealing with the 2008 financial crash and its aftermath.

Emails appear to show that Lord Mandelson told Epstein he was “trying hard” to change government policy on bankers’ bonuses, and gave him advance notice of a €500bn EU bank bailout the day before it was announced.

The peer also appeared to write to Epstein in June 2009 about an “interesting note that’s gone to the PM”, forwarding an assessment by Mr Brown’s adviser Nick Butler of potential policy measures including an “asset sales plan”.

In a cabinet meeting on 3 February, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer told ministers that Lord Mandelson had “let the country down”.

He said the alleged passing on of highly sensitive government business was disgraceful, adding that he was not reassured that all the information had yet emerged.

Sky News has approached representatives for Lord Mandelson for comment on the claims he leaked sensitive information.

Could Mandelson end up in court?

If convicted of an offence, Lord Mandelson could potentially face jail time.

However, Mr Rozenberg said the police investigation will need to be concluded before any further action is decided.

He said the investigation appears to be moving “very quickly” but the Met is likely now focusing on “what evidence they can find, whether they can substantiate the emails, whether they are something that Lord Mandelson doesn’t deny having sent or received, whether there’s other evidence and what explanation he has, if he has an explanation, for what may have happened 20 years ago”.

Again, Lord Mandelson has not commented on the claims.