R v Chaytor
MPs accused of submitting false expenses claims could be prosecuted, because claiming expenses is not a proceeding in Parliament protected by privilege.
Facts
Following public revelations about MPs' expenses in 2009, three former MPs, David Chaytor, Elliot Morley and Jim Devine, and a member of the House of Lords, Lord Hanningfield, were charged with false accounting, on the basis that they had submitted dishonest claims for parliamentary expenses. They argued that the criminal courts had no jurisdiction to try them, because submitting expense claims was part of proceedings in Parliament, protected by article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689, and a matter within the exclusive cognisance of each House.
Legal principle
The Supreme Court held that the prosecutions could proceed. Lord Phillips said that the scope of parliamentary privilege is determined by the courts, and that the principal matter to which article 9 is directed is freedom of speech and debate in the Houses of Parliament and in parliamentary committees, where the core or essential business of Parliament takes place. Submitting claims for allowances and expenses is not part of the core or essential business of Parliament, so it is not protected by article 9, and is not within the exclusive cognisance of the House. Ordinary administrative matters do not become immune from the criminal law merely because they relate to Parliament. All four were later convicted.
Related cases on separation of powers and parliamentary privilege
- Bradlaugh v Gossett (1884) 12 QBD 271
- Duport Steels Ltd v Sirs [1980] 1 WLR 142
- Harper v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1955] Ch 238
- Hinds v The Queen [1977] AC 195
- Liyanage v The Queen [1967] 1 AC 259
- Pepper v Hart [1993] AC 593
- Prebble v Television New Zealand Ltd [1995] 1 AC 321
- R (Anderson) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] UKHL 46, [2003] 1 AC 837
Studying public law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
