Law and Rights
The Court of Appeal (Lord Judge LCJ, Lord Neuberger MR and Sir Anthony May) has ruled that those facing trial over allegations of false accounting in connection with Parliamentary Expenses are liable to be tried in the ordinary criminal courts. The Bill of Rights 1689 does not, in their Lordship's view, prevent this. See The Guardian 30th July 2010. The MPs appealed against a pre-trial ruling by Saunders J. Earlier posts on Law and Lawyers may be seen at Expenses 1, Expenses 2 and Expenses 3. Whether there will be a further appeal to the Supreme Court remains to be seen.
Here is a link to the Court of Appeal Judgment.
- 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...
- Mps Expenses Case: Judicial Ruling Favours Trial Before Impartial Jury
Law and Lawyers covered the MP's expenses case here. The trial judge, Saunders J, has ruled that no bar to a trial before judge and jury can be based on parliamentary privilege. Saunders J is reported as having said that there was no logical,...
- The Parliamentary Four: The Expenses Case Gets Expensive
The Daily Mail (30th March 2010) has a report of the first Crown Court hearing in the "expenses" case against 3 M.P.s and one Member of the House of Lords. An array of massive legal talent is being assembled both for the Crown (Lord Pannick QC,...
- Does The Bill Of Rights 1689 Offer A Defence To Mps?
Three members of the House of Commons and one peer attended City of Westminster Magistrates' Court on Thursday 11th March 2010 - see The Times 12th March. They face various charges under the Theft Act 1968 s.17 (False Accounting). In court...
Law and Rights
MPs Expenses Case - Court of Appeal ruling
Here is a link to the Court of Appeal Judgment.
- 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...
- Mps Expenses Case: Judicial Ruling Favours Trial Before Impartial Jury
Law and Lawyers covered the MP's expenses case here. The trial judge, Saunders J, has ruled that no bar to a trial before judge and jury can be based on parliamentary privilege. Saunders J is reported as having said that there was no logical,...
- The Parliamentary Four: The Expenses Case Gets Expensive
The Daily Mail (30th March 2010) has a report of the first Crown Court hearing in the "expenses" case against 3 M.P.s and one Member of the House of Lords. An array of massive legal talent is being assembled both for the Crown (Lord Pannick QC,...
- Does The Bill Of Rights 1689 Offer A Defence To Mps?
Three members of the House of Commons and one peer attended City of Westminster Magistrates' Court on Thursday 11th March 2010 - see The Times 12th March. They face various charges under the Theft Act 1968 s.17 (False Accounting). In court...