Law and Rights
A media video is available of Mr Nigel Pleming QC arguing in the Supreme Court of the U.K. that the men, charged under the Theft Act 1968 s.17 in relation to expenses claims submitted when they were Members of Parliament, may not be tried in the Crown Court. Mr Pleming stated that it was not because the men claim to be "above the law" but they do claim that only "The High Court of Parliament" may deal with this matter.
From a purely historical perspective, Parliament certainly was the "High Court of Parliament." Until the Criminal Justice Act 1948, a peer could claim a right to be tried there. Furthermore, obsolete procedures such as impeachment and Bills of Attainder appear to remain as, albeit, remote and rather theoretical possibilities. Of course, until the creation of the Supreme Court of the U.K., it was the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords which stood at the apex of British legal systems. Interestingly, perhaps the principal argument for the creation of the Supreme Court was the separation of judicial functions from the legislature.
A modern Parliament fit for the 21st century should disclaim any jurisdiction in criminal matters and should confine itself to the proper role of a legislature: scrutinising proposed legislation, enacting well-considered new law and holding the executive to account through debate and the various committees. The trial processes of the Crown Court are designed to ensure due process. Parliament itself does not have similar procedures and rules of evidence etc. Any "trial" before Parliament is unlikely to reach modern standards of due process required in criminal trials.
A further aspect of the expenses matter is the question of why have these particular men been singled out for prosecution? The expenses scandal was widespread and affected (in different ways) members of both Houses of Parliament. Members from all parties engaged in practices such as "flipping of homes" and these commonplace practices appear to have been generally accepted by the Parliamentary authorities at the time. Of course, now that the men have been charged, they are perfectly entitled to advance any relevant legal argument in their defence. That is their absolute right. It matters not that they are praying in aid outdated and arcane law which really ought to be reformed.
When this costly case - (which has been heard by the Court of Appeal and now has nine Supreme Court justices sitting) - is viewed against the backdrop of massive cuts to legal aid and denial of access to justice for thousands of people it really does make one wonder just what sort of country we are living in.
Addendum 21st October: The Independent "Peers suspended from Lords over expenses claims"
- Parliamentary Privilege And The Expenses Claims - Supreme Court Judgment
The Supreme Court has issued judgment in the Parliamentary "Expenses Claims" case - see here. A press summary is available - here. For the earlier Law and Lawyers posts on this see here. The Supreme Court has clarified that it is for...
- Parliamentary Privilege And The Expenses Claims
The Supreme Court of the U.K. has ruled that parliamentary privilege does not protect David Chaytor, Eliot Morley and Jim Devine from being tried in the Crown Court in relation to expenses claims they submitted to the parliamentary authorities. ...
- The Week Ahead - Monday 18th October
The Supreme Court is hearing argument in the M.P.'s expenses case - (R v Chaytor and others). This is an appeal from the Court of Appeal Criminal Division which held that the Bill of Rights 1688 Article 9 did not protect Members of Parliament...
- Parliamentary Expenses And Privilege: Supreme Court Hearing Expected
An appeal by the three former MPs charged with offences relating to parliamentary expenses is likely to be heard by the Supreme Court. It appears that the point of law to be determined is - "Does the crown court have the jurisdiction to try an MP...
- Parliamentary Privilege And The Expenses Claims
In the post Money, Money, Money (below) the possibility of using parliamentary privilege as a defence to charges under the Theft Act 1968 s.17 was mentioned. [The CPS had referred to that possibility in their press release]. The concern is...
Law and Rights
A world apart from ordinary justice: almost a parallel universe
From a purely historical perspective, Parliament certainly was the "High Court of Parliament." Until the Criminal Justice Act 1948, a peer could claim a right to be tried there. Furthermore, obsolete procedures such as impeachment and Bills of Attainder appear to remain as, albeit, remote and rather theoretical possibilities. Of course, until the creation of the Supreme Court of the U.K., it was the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords which stood at the apex of British legal systems. Interestingly, perhaps the principal argument for the creation of the Supreme Court was the separation of judicial functions from the legislature.
A modern Parliament fit for the 21st century should disclaim any jurisdiction in criminal matters and should confine itself to the proper role of a legislature: scrutinising proposed legislation, enacting well-considered new law and holding the executive to account through debate and the various committees. The trial processes of the Crown Court are designed to ensure due process. Parliament itself does not have similar procedures and rules of evidence etc. Any "trial" before Parliament is unlikely to reach modern standards of due process required in criminal trials.
A further aspect of the expenses matter is the question of why have these particular men been singled out for prosecution? The expenses scandal was widespread and affected (in different ways) members of both Houses of Parliament. Members from all parties engaged in practices such as "flipping of homes" and these commonplace practices appear to have been generally accepted by the Parliamentary authorities at the time. Of course, now that the men have been charged, they are perfectly entitled to advance any relevant legal argument in their defence. That is their absolute right. It matters not that they are praying in aid outdated and arcane law which really ought to be reformed.
When this costly case - (which has been heard by the Court of Appeal and now has nine Supreme Court justices sitting) - is viewed against the backdrop of massive cuts to legal aid and denial of access to justice for thousands of people it really does make one wonder just what sort of country we are living in.
Addendum 21st October: The Independent "Peers suspended from Lords over expenses claims"
- Parliamentary Privilege And The Expenses Claims - Supreme Court Judgment
The Supreme Court has issued judgment in the Parliamentary "Expenses Claims" case - see here. A press summary is available - here. For the earlier Law and Lawyers posts on this see here. The Supreme Court has clarified that it is for...
- Parliamentary Privilege And The Expenses Claims
The Supreme Court of the U.K. has ruled that parliamentary privilege does not protect David Chaytor, Eliot Morley and Jim Devine from being tried in the Crown Court in relation to expenses claims they submitted to the parliamentary authorities. ...
- The Week Ahead - Monday 18th October
The Supreme Court is hearing argument in the M.P.'s expenses case - (R v Chaytor and others). This is an appeal from the Court of Appeal Criminal Division which held that the Bill of Rights 1688 Article 9 did not protect Members of Parliament...
- Parliamentary Expenses And Privilege: Supreme Court Hearing Expected
An appeal by the three former MPs charged with offences relating to parliamentary expenses is likely to be heard by the Supreme Court. It appears that the point of law to be determined is - "Does the crown court have the jurisdiction to try an MP...
- Parliamentary Privilege And The Expenses Claims
In the post Money, Money, Money (below) the possibility of using parliamentary privilege as a defence to charges under the Theft Act 1968 s.17 was mentioned. [The CPS had referred to that possibility in their press release]. The concern is...