Law and Rights
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 the courts to determine what is a "proceeding in Parliament" when interpreting Article IX of the Bill of Rights. Nevertheless, the court would pay careful regard to views expressed in Parliament.
Contrary to some views expressed in the media, the men were never claiming that they were somehow "above the law." Rather, they argued that a special aspect of the law offered them a defence in to a criminal charge. Neverthless, it is a pity that Parliament has not taken opportunities to reform the law in this area and that such costly proceedings have occurred. In 1999, Parliament published "Parliamentary Privilege - First Report." This contains a detailed discussion of Article IX of the Bill of Rights 1689. The report also made a number of recommendations which do not seem to have been actioned. They included a call for Parliament to clarify the scope of the prohibition in Article IX and that the term "proceeding in Parliament" should be defined as was the case, since 1987, in Australia.
A separate line of argument that the claims were within Parliament's "exclusive jurisdiction" was also rejected.
- 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. ...
- A World Apart From Ordinary Justice: Almost A Parallel Universe
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...
- 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...
- Mps Expenses Case - Court Of Appeal Ruling
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. ...
- 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
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 the courts to determine what is a "proceeding in Parliament" when interpreting Article IX of the Bill of Rights. Nevertheless, the court would pay careful regard to views expressed in Parliament.
Contrary to some views expressed in the media, the men were never claiming that they were somehow "above the law." Rather, they argued that a special aspect of the law offered them a defence in to a criminal charge. Neverthless, it is a pity that Parliament has not taken opportunities to reform the law in this area and that such costly proceedings have occurred. In 1999, Parliament published "Parliamentary Privilege - First Report." This contains a detailed discussion of Article IX of the Bill of Rights 1689. The report also made a number of recommendations which do not seem to have been actioned. They included a call for Parliament to clarify the scope of the prohibition in Article IX and that the term "proceeding in Parliament" should be defined as was the case, since 1987, in Australia.
A separate line of argument that the claims were within Parliament's "exclusive jurisdiction" was also rejected.
- 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. ...
- A World Apart From Ordinary Justice: Almost A Parallel Universe
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...
- 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...
- Mps Expenses Case - Court Of Appeal Ruling
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. ...
- 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...