header-logo header-logo

Judge rules on privilege

18 June 2010
Issue: 7422 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Three Labour MPs and a Tory Peer accused of false accounting over their expenses claims cannot invoke Parliamentary privilege and could now face a criminal trial, the Crown court has held.

Conservative Peer Lord Hanningfield and former Labour MPs Elliot Morley, David Chayter and Jim Devine all deny theft by false accounting.
Delivering his judgment at Southwark Crown Court last week, Mr Justice Saunders rejected arguments that only Parliament could hear their case. He said he could see “no logical, practical or moral justification for a claim for expenses being covered by privilege” adding that he could  see “no legal justification for it either”.

Saunders J went on to criticise misconceived comments about the case in the media and from politicians.

“It has been common ground during argument that, if privilege does cover the subject matter of the indictment, it is the privilege of Parliament and not the privilege of any individual member,” he said.

“Therefore, even if the defendants had wished to waive privilege they could not have done so, and comments from prominent politicians to the effect that they could, were misconceived.”

Had the defence not submitted arguments on the basis of privilege, he said, he would have asked for independent counsel to be instructed to ensure the issue was properly argued. Permission was given to appeal.
 

Issue: 7422 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll