Bill of Rights privilege plea fails parliamentary expenses four

14 June 2010 by

Morley & Ors, R. v [2010] EW Misc 9 (EWCC) (11 June 2010) – Read judgment

Four former Members of Parliament have failed in their initial bid to claim parliamentary privilege in criminal proceedings arising from the parliamentary expenses scandal. The case has highlighted constitutional principles which reach back hundreds of years to the time of Oliver Cromwell, and raises questions of whether parliamentarians are above the criminal justice system.

This will not be the end of the affair, however, as leave to appeal has been granted with the case to be heard by the Court of Appeal as early as before the end of this month

Mr Justice Saunders sitting the Southwark Crown Court ruled that the parliamentary privilege enshrined in the 1688 Bill of Rights does not extend to protecting the four ex-MPs, Elliott Morley, David Chaytor, James Devine and Lord Hanningfield, from prosecutions for claiming inflated expenses.

He said that he could “see no logical, practical or moral justification for a claim for expenses being covered by privilege; and I can see no legal justification for it either.” He indicated that this may not be the end of the legal argument, however, as “It may be that, whatever my decision, it will be subject to review by a higher court and the sooner that procedure gets underway the better.”

332 years later

The four defendants attempted to shut down prosecutions against them by relying on Article 9 of the 1688 Bill of Rights, which states:

That the Freedome of Speech and Debates or Proceedings in Parlyament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or Place out of Parlyament.

The 1668 Act, as distinct from the bill of rights which the Coalition Government has proposed to supplement the Human Rights Act, established many of the protections which now find form in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Some of the language is familiar, such as the provision against “cruel and unusual punishments”, which foreshadowed Article 3 of the ECHR.

The intention behind the 1688 Act, which is still in force, was to establish rights seen as essential to restricting the power of the monarch, and bolstering the power and independence of Parliament (see our previous post). The courts, which in the seventeenth century were within the power of the monarch, were prevented from interfering with the proceedings of Parliament. The question before Mr Justice Saunders was whether the separation from powers enshrined by Article 9 extended to protecting modern parliamentarians from criminal prosecution in this context.

“In” Parliament

The key question for Mr Justice Saunders was how widely “Proceedings in Parlyament” should be construed, and whether the words should extend to the act of filling in parliamentary expenses forms. As to the central principles of parliamentary privilege under the Bill of Rights, as well as the “much broader privilege” found in the common law, he favoured the summary of Mr Justice Burnton in Office of Government Commerce v Information Commissioner [2008] EWHC 737 (Admin):

These authorities demonstrate that the law of Parliamentary privilege is essentially based on two principles. The first is the need to avoid any risk of interference with free speech in Parliament. The second is the principle of the separation of powers, which in our Constitution is restricted to the judicial function of government, and requires the executive and the legislature to abstain from interference with the judicial function, and conversely requires the judiciary not to interfere with or to criticise the proceedings of the legislature. These basic principles lead to the requirement of mutual respect by the Courts for the proceedings and decisions of the legislature and by the legislature (and the executive) for the proceedings and decisions of the courts’.

Not above the law

The first point that Mr Justice Saunders made clear, and which counsel for both sides agreed on, was that parliamentary privilege does not and is not intended to raise MPs above the criminal justice system. Any “ordinary criminal conduct” that “was not connected to the activities of the House” was not covered by privilege. For example “an assault in the corridors of the House, theft of another member’s money, or a sexual offence, none of which relate to parliamentary activity or proceedings in Parliament.”

However, as the public debate at the time demonstrated, it is at least questionable whether over-claiming expenses amounts to a criminal act. Even if it does, it is not exactly “ordinary” criminal conduct. As such, the crucial question would be whether the act of claiming the expenses, that is the act of filling in the form, would attract privilege.

The judge accepted that to some extent at least the administration of the expenses scheme was covered by privilege; for example, it would not be possible to judicially review the workings of the system itself, which is the sole jurisdiction of Parliament and not the courts, as would be the voting system in Parliamentary debates or the election of the speaker. Ultimately, however, he found that the filling in of the expenses form would not attract privilege, saying:

While I accept that the processing of the forms is part of the workings of Parliament … I see no reason to extend that privilege to cover the submission of the form. The point made by the Defence is a valid one but there has to be a line drawn and it has to be drawn somewhere. If the form were included it would then become arguable that there would be no form submitted unless there were actual expenses to claim. Is it therefore to be argued that incurring those expenses is also covered by privilege? Wherever a line is drawn there may be anomalies.

This amounts to a purposive interpretation of the law under the Bill of Rights as well as the common law principles. In other words, the judge accepted that logical arguments can be made on either side in respect of where to draw the line as to what acts fall within the “workings of Parliament” and to that end if filling in of the expenses form is part of the expenses scheme. But, ultimately, he applied the principles which he considered lie beneath Parliamentary privilege, which is probably not intended to protect MPs from underhand dealings as alleged here. To this end he concluded:

I am satisfied that in the context of criminal charges Parliamentary privilege should be narrowly construed. The principle that all men are equal before the law is an important one and should be observed unless there is good reason why it should not apply. To do otherwise would risk bringing both the Courts and Parliament into disrepute and diminish confidence in the criminal justice system

Now to the Court of Appeal

It is apparent from the decision that Mr Justice Saunders struggled with the conclusion he had to reach. He admitted that the decision had “not been easy” and that “very important constitutional principles are involved which must be respected, and that must be the case even if it leads to a result which is unpopular not only with the public but also with Members of Parliament.”

He also granted leave to appeal. When the matter does reach the Court of Appeal, which could be as soon as by the end of June, it may be that the judges there will follow Mr Justice Saunders’ purposive reading of the law, which is an entirely legitimate and often used principle of statutory interpretation, or they may take a more technical approach and find that the expenses scheme logically has to include the filling in of the expenses form.

But it does seem unlikely that the higher court would enforce a privilege, no matter how long it has been on the statute books, which would appear to place members of parliament beyond the reach of criminal justice.

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals Anne Sacoolas anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board care homes Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs costs budgets Court of Protection crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy diplomatic relations disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control hague convention Harry Dunn Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy procurement Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions prostituton Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation refugee rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism The Round Up tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Weekly Round-up Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: