Malice
In "Ferguson v Kinnoul" the Lord Chancellor
said that a continued refusal to perform a ministerial act
was sufficient
evidence of malice and it was not necessary to demonstrate
personal spite. He observed: "[M]alice in the legal acceptation
of the word is not confined to personal spite against individuals,
but consists in a conscious violation of the law to the prejudice
of another." His concluding words were: "and it is a
well-established maxim that everyone must be taken to intend
the necessary consequences of his deliberate acts". In other
words, he said that malice was used in two senses - first,
where there was actual spite; and second, where there was
a conscious or knowing abuse of office.
|