Parliamentary Privilege — R v Chaytor

Facts

The defendants were Members of the House of Commons and a member of the House of Lords who were charged with false accounting in respect of claims for allowances and expenses made to the parliamentary authorities. The prosecution alleged that the claims were dishonest. The defendants contended that the claims fell within the privilege of Parliament.

History

The defendants applied to the Crown Court to have the charges stayed on the ground that the courts had no jurisdiction because of parliamentary privilege. Saunders J rejected the argument. The Court of Appeal dismissed the defendants' appeals, and they appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issue

Whether article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689, or the wider privilege of exclusive cognisance of the Houses, deprived the Crown Court of jurisdiction to try members charged with false accounting in relation to expenses claims.

Held

The appeals were dismissed. Neither article 9 nor exclusive cognisance prevented the prosecution. The submission of claims for expenses was not a proceeding in Parliament, and the court had jurisdiction.

Ratio

• Article 9 protects freedom of speech and debates and proceedings in Parliament, which covers the formal business of the Houses and committees and acts done for the purposes of that business, but not administrative processes such as claiming expenses.
• Exclusive cognisance, the right of each House to regulate its own affairs, extends to matters that are the core business of Parliament, and does not extend to the Houses' administrative arrangements or to the operation of the criminal law on dishonest claims.

The judgments

Key reasoning

• The meaning of proceedings in Parliament is concerned with what is said and done in the course of the business of the Houses or committees, and extends to things done for the purpose of the business only if they are necessary for it.
• The expenses scheme was administrative, and prosecution for false accounting would not impede the freedom of debate or the ability of the Houses to function.
• The Houses' power to regulate their own affairs had in the past been recognised in areas of core internal business, and did not include a power to confer immunity from the ordinary criminal law on matters merely connected with the administration of members' pay.

Where it fits in the module

The case is on the Oxford list under article 9 of the Bill of Rights because it addresses the extent of parliamentary privilege and its relation to the rule of law. It tests how the courts reconcile the independence of Parliament with the principle that members are subject to the criminal law. It also illustrates the working of the separation of powers between courts and Parliament as the court decides the scope of the privilege.

Criticisms

• The test of necessity for the core business of Parliament leaves uncertain the boundary of exclusive cognisance, so members cannot know where their protection ends.
• Allowing courts to decide the scope of privilege may be said to reduce Parliament's control over its own proceedings, which is the essence of exclusive cognisance.
• The court gave limited weight to the argument that Parliament had its own system for dealing with expenses abuses, which could be seen as a more appropriate means of regulating members than the criminal law.