Supreme Court dismisses expenses MPs’ appeal on parliamentary privilege

10 November 2010 by

R v Chaytor and others (Appellants) UKSC 2010/0195 (Awaiting judgment)

The Supreme Court has dismissed the appellants’ appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeal Criminal Division that the Crown Court does have jurisdiction to try a Member of Parliament in relation to the submission of an allegedly dishonest claim for Parliamentary expenses or allowances.

The Appellants had argued that the court was deprived of jurisdiction by either or both of (i) Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1688; or (ii) the exclusive jurisdiction of Parliament.

As can be seen from our previous posts on this matter, the appellants had each been committed for trial in the Crown Court on charges of false accounting contrary to s 17(1) Theft Act 1968 arising from their submission of claims for parliamentary expenses and/or allowances at a time when each appellant was a sitting Member of Parliament. At a preparatory hearing the appellants contended that the Crown Court did not have jurisdiction to determine the charges by reason of parliamentary privilege.

Read more:


  1. James Wilson says:

    Actually I’m pretty certain that they will do both, and more than one will have a crack at some purple prose. What puzzled me when the expenses scandal broke was that most commentary, and all of the excuses proferred by the MPs, seemed to ignore the overriding objectives of the Parliamentary Green Book.

    It contains a large number of detailed rules. Presumably these are the rules with which MPs think they complied. They are, however, made subject to overriding principles, which the Green Book states must be adhered to when making claims. These include: that claims should be above reproach; that claims must only be made for expenditure that it was necessary for an MP to incur to ensure that he or she could properly perform his or her parliamentary duties; that MPs must ensure that claims do not give rise to, or give the appearance of giving rise to, an improper personal financial benefit to themselves or anyone else; that MPs are committed to openness about what expenditure has been incurred and for what purposes; and that MPs should avoid purchases which could be seen as extravagant or luxurious.

    This was pointed out by Francis Bennion in a letter to the Times, though not many others seem to have run with it.

  2. Adam Wagner says:

    I think they may do both (perhaps with multiple judgments). The MPs have such an unattractive case that it is a good opportunity to wax lyrical on constitutional principles. Realistically no MP is going to argue against this decision no matter how strident it is in constitutional terms.

    Better to do it now than in a case where there is a real potential for a constitutional clash, e.g.

  3. James Wilson says:

    I will be interested to see how the judgments are written, given the rather curious debate that seems to have done the rounds on the court “making its identity” or “attracting publicity” (which would have appalled the old Law Lords of the past). Will they simply find as a technical interpretation that the expenses do not fall within the protection of art 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689, or will someone do an impression of Denning at the constitutional pulpit?

  4. Adam Wagner says:

    The Supreme Court must have enjoyed finding themselves above Parliament for once (sort of)!

  5. James Wilson says:

    As I have said elsewhere this morning, the most apposite quote I can think of is Denning’s invocation of Thomas Fuller: “Be you never so high, the law is above you”

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.




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.


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption ALBA Al Qaeda animal rights 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 Artificial Intelligence Asbestos assisted suicide asylum Australia autism benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery Catholicism Chagos Islanders Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners climate change clinical negligence Coercion common law confidentiality consent conservation constitution contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs Court of Protection crime Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation deportation deprivation of liberty Detention disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Family Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage Gaza genetics Germany Google Grenfell Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests international law internet Inuit Iran Iraq Ireland Islam Israel Italy IVF Japan Judaism judicial review jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid Leveson Inquiry LGBTQ Rights liability Libel Liberty Libya Lithuania local authorities marriage mental capacity Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery music Muslim nationality national security NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury Piracy Plagiarism planning Poland Police Politics pollution press Prisoners Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia Saudi Arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing statelessness stop and search Strasbourg Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treaty TTIP Turkey UK Ukraine USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wind farms WomenInLaw YearInReview Zimbabwe
%d bloggers like this: