Impeachment in the United Kingdom

Last updated

The impeachment of Warren Hastings, 1788 The trail of Warren Hastings, 1788.jpg
The impeachment of Warren Hastings, 1788

Impeachment is a process in which the Parliament of the United Kingdom may prosecute and try individuals, normally holders of public office, for high treason or other crimes and misdemeanours. First used to try William Latimer, 4th Baron Latimer during the English Good Parliament of 1376, it was a rare mechanism whereby Parliament was able to arrest and depose ministers of the Crown. The last impeachment was that of Henry Dundas, 1st Viscount Melville in 1806; since then, other forms of democratic scrutiny (such as the doctrine of collective cabinet responsibility and recalling MPs) have been favoured and the process has been considered as an obsolete—but still extant—power of Parliament. [1]

Contents

This is in contrast to other countries, most notably the United States, where impeachment developed into a means to try officeholders for various misdeeds and has become a common process to the present day.

Procedure

The procedure for impeachment was described in the first edition of Erskine May thus: any member of the House of Commons with proof of an individual's crimes could charge them of said crime and move for their impeachment. If the House of Commons voted to impeach, the mover would be ordered to go to the Bar of the House of Lords to impeach them "in the name of the House of Commons, and of all the commons of the United Kingdom" and "to acquaint them that this house will, in due time, exhibit particular articles against him, and make good the same."

In practice, the Commons would usually select a committee to draw up the charges and create an "Article of Impeachment" for each. Once the committee had delivered the articles to the Lords, replies go between the accused and the Commons via the Lords. If the Commons have impeached a peer, the Lords take custody of the accused; otherwise, Black Rod takes custody. The accused remains in custody unless the Lords allow bail. The Lords set a date for the trial while the Commons appoints managers, who act as prosecutors in the trial. The accused may defend by counsel.

The House of Lords hears the case. The procedure used to be that the lord chancellor presided (or the lord high steward if the defendant was a peer); but this was when the Lord Chancellor was both the Lords' presiding officer and head of the judiciary of England and Wales. Since both these roles were removed from that office by the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, which created the Lord Speaker of the House of Lords to preside over the Lords and made the Lord Chief Justice head of the judiciary, it is not certain who would preside over an impeachment trial today. If parliament is not in session, then the trial is conducted by a "Court of the Lord High Steward" instead of the House of Lords (even if the defendant is not a peer). The differences between this court and the House of Lords are that in the House all of the peers are judges of both law and fact, whereas in the Court the Lord High Steward is the sole judge of law and the peers decide the facts only; and the bishops are not entitled to sit and vote in the Court. [2] Traditionally, peers would wear their parliamentary robes during the hearings.

The hearing resembles an ordinary trial: both sides may call witnesses and present evidence. At the end of the hearing the lords vote on the verdict, which is decided by a simple majority, one charge at a time. Upon being called, a peer must rise and declare "guilty, upon my honour" or "not guilty, upon my honour". After voting on all of the articles has taken place, and if the Lords find the defendant guilty, the Commons may move for judgment; the Lords may not declare the punishment until the Commons have so moved. The Lords may then decide whatever punishment they find fit, within the law. A royal pardon cannot excuse the defendant from trial, but a pardon may reprieve a convicted defendant. However, a pardon cannot override a decision to remove the defendant from the public office they hold.

The United Kingdom has no codified constitution, and the legal basis for parliamentary impeachment derives not from statute law but from ancient constitutional convention dating back to 1376. [3] As with all conventions, however, the scope of impeachment can be and has been modified by Act of Parliament.

The Act of Settlement 1701 [4] restricted the exercise of royal power by preventing the sovereign from using the royal prerogative of mercy [5] to nullify an impeachment: "That no Pardon under the Great Seal of England be pleadable to an Impeachment by the Commons in Parliament."

Whilst historically judges were removed by impeachment (and constitutionally still may be), [6] the 1701 Act of Settlement provided that a judge of the High Court or the Court of Appeal may be removed by both Houses of Parliament petitioning the Sovereign. [7] This power is now contained in Section 11(3) of the Senior Courts Act 1981: [8] "A person appointed to an office to which this section applies shall hold that office during good behaviour, subject to a power of removal by Her Majesty on an address presented to Her by both Houses of Parliament."

History

Instances of use

Parliament has held the power of impeachment since medieval times. Originally, the House of Lords held that impeachment could apply only to members of the peerage; however, in 1681 the Commons declared that they had the right to impeach anyone, and the Lords respected this resolution. Offices held "during good behaviour" are terminable by the writ of either quo warranto (e.g. R v Richardson ) or scire facias , which has even been employed by and against well-placed judges. [9]

After the reign of Edward IV, impeachment fell into disuse, the bill of attainder becoming the preferred form of dealing with undesirable subjects of the Crown. However, during the reign of James I and thereafter, impeachments became more popular, as they did not require the assent of the sovereign, while bills of attainder did, thus allowing parliament to resist royal attempts to dominate parliament. In 1715 the former lord treasurer Lord Harley was impeached for high treason, much of it relating to his agreement of the Peace of Utrecht and his alleged support for the Jacobite pretender James Francis Edward Stuart. After two years in the Tower of London he was acquitted in 1717.

The most recent cases of impeachment were of Warren Hastings, governor-general of India between 1773 and 1786 (impeached in 1788; found not guilty by the Lords in 1795), and Henry Dundas, 1st Viscount Melville, first lord of the admiralty, in 1806 (also acquitted). The last attempted impeachment occurred in 1848, when David Urquhart accused Lord Palmerston of having signed a secret treaty with Imperial Russia and of receiving money from the Tsar. Palmerston survived a vote in the Commons which meant that the Lords did not need to hear the case.

Queen Caroline

Queen Caroline, consort of King George IV, was tried by the House of Commons and acquitted. The process began as impeachment proceedings, but then became a different procedure as a bill of pains and penalties.

Other parliamentary powers

In addition to the power of impeachment, the House of Commons claims the right to discipline offenders, both members and non-members, a right that has been accepted by the courts. [10] John Junor, editor of The Sunday Express , was admonished in 1957 for an article which cast doubt on the honour and integrity of Members; he apologised and no further action was taken. [10] In 1968 the House admonished one of its own members, Tam Dalyell. [10]

Proposals for abolition

The impeachment procedure has not been used for more than two hundred years, and some legal authorities, such as Halsbury's Laws of England , consider it now to be probably obsolete. The principles of "responsible government" require that the prime minister and other executive officers answer to parliament, rather than to the Sovereign. Thus the Commons can remove such officers through motions of no confidence without a long, drawn-out impeachment, although if such officers refused to stand down in such cases, it remains to be seen what other devices can be used to remove them from office other than impeachment. However, it is argued by some that the remedy of impeachment remains as part of British constitutional law, and that legislation would be required to abolish it. Furthermore, impeachment as a means of punishment for wrongdoing, as distinct from being a means of removing a minister, remains a valid reason for accepting that it continues to be available, at least in theory.

The Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege in 1967 recommended "that the right to impeach, which has long been in disuse, be now formally abandoned". [11] Their recommendation not having been implemented in the meantime, the Select Committee on Privileges in 1977 declared it "to be of continuing validity" and again urged that the recommendation to abolish be adopted. [12]

The Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege in 1999 noted the previous recommendations to formally abandon the power of impeachment, and stated that "The circumstances in which impeachment has taken place are now so remote from the present that the procedure may be considered obsolete". [13]

Potential instances in modern politics

In April 1977 the Young Liberals' annual conference unanimously passed a motion calling on Liberal Party leader David Steel to move for the impeachment of Ronald King Murray, the Lord Advocate, over his handling of the Patrick Meehan miscarriage of justice affair. [14] Steel did not move any such motion but Murray (who later became Lord Murray, a Senator of the College of Justice of Scotland) agreed that the power still existed.

On 25 August 2004, Plaid Cymru MP Adam Price announced his intention to move for the impeachment of Tony Blair for his role in involving Britain in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. He asked the Leader of the House of Commons Peter Hain whether he would confirm that the power to impeach was still available, reminding Hain that as president of the Young Liberals he had supported the attempted impeachment of Murray. Hain responded by quoting the 1999 Joint Committee's report, and the advice of the Clerk of the House of Commons that impeachment "effectively died with the advent of full responsible parliamentary government". [15]

On 29 September 2019, the Sunday Times reported that opposition politicians in the House of Commons were considering impeachment proceedings against the prime minister, Boris Johnson, "on charges of gross misconduct in relation to the unlawful prorogation of parliament", as well as his threat to break the law by failing to comply with the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 (which required him in certain circumstances to seek an extension to the Brexit withdrawal date of 31 October 2019). [16]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">House of Lords</span> Upper house of the UK Parliament

The House of Lords is the upper house of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Like the lower house, the House of Commons, it meets in the Palace of Westminster in London, England. One of the oldest institutions in the world, its origins lie in the early 11th century and the emergence of bicameralism in the 13th century.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Parliament of the United Kingdom</span> Legislative body in the United Kingdom

The Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the supreme legislative body of the United Kingdom, and may also legislate for the Crown Dependencies and the British Overseas Territories. It meets at the Palace of Westminster in London. Parliament possesses legislative supremacy and thereby holds ultimate power over all other political bodies in the United Kingdom and the Overseas Territories. While Parliament is bicameral, it has three parts: the sovereign, the House of Lords, and the House of Commons. The three parts acting together to legislate may be described as the King-in-Parliament. The Crown normally acts on the advice of the prime minister, and the powers of the House of Lords are limited to only delaying legislation; thus power is de facto vested in the House of Commons.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Impeachment</span> Process for charging a public official with legal offenses by the legislature(s)

Impeachment is a process by which a legislative body or other legally constituted tribunal initiates charges against a public official for misconduct. It may be understood as a unique process involving both political and legal elements.

Judicial independence is the concept that the judiciary should be independent from the other branches of government. That is, courts should not be subject to improper influence from the other branches of government or from private or partisan interests. Judicial independence is important for the idea of separation of powers.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judicial functions of the House of Lords</span> Historical role of the UK House of Lords

Whilst the House of Lords of the United Kingdom is the upper chamber of Parliament and has government ministers, for many centuries it had a judicial function. It functioned as a court of first instance for the trials of peers and for impeachments, and as a court of last resort in the United Kingdom and prior, the Kingdom of Great Britain and the Kingdom of England.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Lord Chancellor</span> Great Officer of State in the United Kingdom

The Lord Chancellor, formally titled Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain, is the highest-ranking traditional minister among the Great Officers of State in Scotland and England in the United Kingdom, nominally outranking the prime minister. The lord chancellor is appointed by the sovereign on the advice of the prime minister. Prior to the union of England and Scotland into the Kingdom of Great Britain, there were separate lord chancellors for the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland. There were Lord Chancellors of Ireland until 1922.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">High Court of Justiciary</span> Supreme criminal court in Scotland

The High Court of Justiciary is the supreme criminal court in Scotland. The High Court is both a trial court and a court of appeal. As a trial court, the High Court sits on circuit at Parliament House or in the adjacent former Sheriff Court building in the Old Town in Edinburgh, or in dedicated buildings in Glasgow and Aberdeen. The High Court sometimes sits in various smaller towns in Scotland, where it uses the local sheriff court building. As an appeal court, the High Court sits only in Edinburgh. On one occasion the High Court of Justiciary sat outside Scotland, at Zeist in the Netherlands during the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing trial, as the Scottish Court in the Netherlands. At Zeist the High Court sat both as a trial court, and an appeal court for the initial appeal by Abdelbaset al-Megrahi.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">House of Lords Act 1999</span> UK law removing hereditary peerage from the House of Lords

The House of Lords Act 1999 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that reformed the House of Lords, one of the chambers of Parliament. The Act was given Royal Assent on 11 November 1999. For centuries, the House of Lords had included several hundred members who inherited their seats ; the Act removed such a right. However, as part of a compromise, the Act allowed ninety-two hereditary peers to remain in the House. Another ten were created life peers to enable them to remain in the House.

The British peerage is governed by a body of law that has developed over several centuries. Much of this law has been established by a few important cases, and some of the more significant of these are addressed in this article.

The privilege of peerage is the body of special privileges belonging to members of the British peerage. It is distinct from parliamentary privilege, which applies only to those peers serving in the House of Lords and the members of the House of Commons, while Parliament is in session and forty days before and after a parliamentary session.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Constitutional Reform Act 2005</span> Constitutional reform of the UK Judiciary

The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, relevant to UK constitutional law. It provides for a Supreme Court of the United Kingdom to take over the previous appellate jurisdiction of the Law Lords as well as some powers of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and removed the functions of Speaker of the House of Lords and Head of the Judiciary of England and Wales from the office of Lord Chancellor.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supreme Court of the United Kingdom</span> Final court of appeal in the United Kingdom

The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom is the final court of appeal in the United Kingdom for all civil cases, and for criminal cases originating in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. As the United Kingdom's highest appellate court for these matters, it hears cases of the greatest public or constitutional importance affecting the whole population.

<i>R (Jackson) v Attorney General</i> UK House of Lords case

R (Jackson) v Attorney General [2005] UKHL 56 is a House of Lords case noted for containing obiter comments by the judiciary acting in their official capacity suggesting that there may be limits to parliamentary sovereignty, the orthodox position being that it is unlimited in the United Kingdom.

An impeachment trial is a trial that functions as a component of an impeachment. Several governments utilize impeachment trials as a part of their processes for impeachment, but differ as to when in the impeachment process trials take place and how such trials are held.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Constitution of the United Kingdom</span>

The constitution of the United Kingdom comprises the written and unwritten arrangements that establish the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as a political body. Unlike in most countries, no official attempt has been made to codify such arrangements into a single document, thus it is known as an uncodified constitution. This enables the constitution to be easily changed as no provisions are formally entrenched.

<i>Erskine May: Parliamentary Practice</i> Manual of UK Parliamentary procedure

Erskine May is a parliamentary authority originally written by British constitutional theorist and Clerk of the House of Commons, Thomas Erskine May.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criminal Justice Act 1948</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Criminal Justice Act 1948 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It implemented several widespread reforms of the English criminal justice system, mainly abolishing penal servitude, corporal punishment, and the right of peers to be tried for treason and felony in the House of Lords. The act also dealt with more minor aspects of criminal law, such as the procedure regarding bail. Early versions of the bill attempted to abolish the death penalty, but this would not occur until 1965.

In United Kingdom constitutional law, prorogation is an act usually used to mark the end of a parliamentary session. Part of the royal prerogative, it is the name given to the period between the end of a session of the UK Parliament and the State Opening of Parliament that begins the next session. The average length of prorogation since 2000 is approximately 18 days. The parliamentary session may also be prorogued before Parliament is dissolved. The power to prorogue Parliament belongs to the monarch, on the advice of the Privy Council. Like all prerogative powers, it is not left to the personal discretion of the monarch but is to be exercised, on the advice of the prime minister, according to law.

On 28 August 2019, the Parliament of the United Kingdom was ordered to be prorogued by Queen Elizabeth II on the advice of the Conservative prime minister, Boris Johnson – advice which was later ruled unlawful. The prorogation, or suspension, of Parliament was to be effective from some point between 9 and 12 September 2019 and would last until the State Opening of Parliament on 14 October 2019. As a consequence, Parliament was suspended between 10 September and 24 September 2019. Since Parliament was to be prorogued for five weeks and reconvene just 17 days before the United Kingdom's scheduled departure from the European Union on 31 October 2019, the move was seen by many opposition politicians and political commentators as a controversial and unconstitutional attempt by the prime minister to avoid parliamentary scrutiny of the Government's Brexit plans in the final weeks leading up to Brexit. Johnson and his Government defended the prorogation of Parliament as a routine political process that ordinarily follows the selection of a new prime minister and would allow the Government to refocus on a legislative agenda.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Federal impeachment in the United States</span> Procedure of officially accusing a civil officer

In the United States, federal impeachment is the process by which the House of Representatives charges the president, vice president, or another civil federal officer for alleged misconduct. The House can impeach an individual with a simple majority of the present members or other criteria adopted by the House according to Article One, Section 2, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution.

References

  1. ↑ Caird, Jack Simson (6 June 2016). "Impeachment". House of Commons Library.
  2. ↑ William Blackstone (1769). Commentaries on the Laws of England vol. 4, chapter 19
  3. ↑ Tarkow, I. Naamani (1943). "The Significance of the Act of Settlement in the Evolution of English Democracy". Political Science Quarterly. 58 (4): 537–561. doi:10.2307/2144947. ISSN   0032-3195. JSTOR   2144947.
  4. ↑ "Act of Settlement (1700)". www.legislation.gov.uk. 1700 CHAPTER 2 12 and 13 Will 3. Retrieved 22 May 2020.
  5. ↑ Deacon, Edward E. (1831). A digest of the criminal law of England: as altered by the recent statutes for the consolidation and improvement of it : in two volumes 2. 2. Saunders and Benning. OCLC   166033000.
  6. ↑ Barnett, Hilaire (2002). Constitutional and Administrative Law. Cavendish Publishing. ISBN   978-1-84314-475-5 . Retrieved 22 May 2020.
  7. ↑ "Judges and Parliament". www.judiciary.uk.
  8. ↑ "Supreme Court Act 1981". www.legislation.gov.uk.
  9. ↑ Raoul Berger, Impeachment: The Constitutional Problems p. 132 (1974, Harvard University Press)
  10. 1 2 3 "Disciplinary and Penal Powers of the House" (PDF). September 2010. Retrieved 22 May 2020.{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  11. ↑ "Report from the Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege", HC 34 1967–68 para 115.
  12. ↑ "Third report from the Committee of Privileges: Recommendations of the Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege", HC 417 1976–77 para 16.
  13. ↑ "Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege report", HC 214 1998–99, para 16.
  14. ↑ "Liberals confident of victory on petrol duty". The Times . 11 April 1977. p. 2.
  15. ↑ Hansard HC 6ser vol 424 col 871.
  16. ↑ Wheeler, Caroline (29 September 2019). "Rebel alliance plots to impeach prime minister". The Sunday Times. p. 2.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.