Stockdale v Hansard
A resolution of one House of Parliament cannot change the law, and the courts decide the extent of parliamentary privilege.
Facts
Hansard, the printers of the House of Commons, published, on the order of the House, a report by the inspectors of prisons. The report stated that a book published by Mr Stockdale, found in Newgate prison, was indecent and obscene. Mr Stockdale sued Hansard for libel. The House of Commons had passed a resolution declaring that publishing its papers was protected by parliamentary privilege and that it was a breach of privilege to bring legal proceedings challenging such publications.
Legal principle
The court held that Hansard was not protected by parliamentary privilege, because publication of papers to the public beyond Parliament was not necessary for the functioning of the House. Lord Denman CJ said that a resolution of the House of Commons cannot change the law of the land, and that the courts have the power to determine whether a claimed privilege exists. Parliament responded by passing the Parliamentary Papers Act 1840, which gives protection to papers published by order of either House. The case shows the limits of a single House's power.
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.
