“Parliamentary privilege does not protect MPs from criminal prosecution for expenses fraud”
Several MPs were charged with criminal offenses relating to false expenses claims. The defendants argued that parliamentary privilege prevented criminal prosecution as the claims related to proceedings in Parliament under Article IX of the Bill of Rights 1689.
Whether criminal proceedings against MPs for expenses fraud were barred by parliamentary privilege under Article IX of the Bill of Rights 1689.
The Supreme Court held that parliamentary privilege did not apply to expenses claims, allowing criminal prosecutions to proceed.
This decision clarifies the boundaries of parliamentary privilege and confirms that MPs are subject to ordinary criminal law for non-parliamentary activities. It is fundamental for understanding constitutional law and the separation of powers.
You're reading the free summary of Parliamentary Privilege — R v Chaytor. Create a free account to unlock the full reasoning, the cited authorities and the verbatim judgment — plus structured briefs for 412,000+ UK judgments.
No card required. Free forever.
OSCOLA Citation
R v Chaytor [2010] UKSC 52
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Falls back to Google for old citations BAILII catalogues separately
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.