Parliamentary privilege in the United Kingdom

Last updated

The Liberal Democrat politician John Hemming used parliamentary privilege to reveal the litigant involved in the case CTB v News Group Newspapers. John Hemming Parliament.jpg
The Liberal Democrat politician John Hemming used parliamentary privilege to reveal the litigant involved in the case CTB v News Group Newspapers .

Parliamentary privilege in the United Kingdom is a legal immunity enjoyed by members of the House of Commons and House of Lords designed to ensure that parliamentarians are able to carry out their duties free from interference. The privileges are freedom of speech, freedom from arrest on civil matters, freedom of access to the sovereign, and that 'the most favourable construction should be placed on all the Houses' proceedings'. [1] Fair and accurate reporting of the proceedings of parliament is also protected by parliamentary privilege. [2]

Contents

Parliamentary privilege is, however, something that forms part of the law rather than putting Members of Parliament above the law: for example, the MPs Chris Huhne and Fiona Onasanya were both successfully convicted of non-parliamentary criminal offences in the 2010s; [3] and the 2010 Supreme Court case R v Chaytor , argued in the wake of the parliamentary expenses scandal, ruled that MPs were not immune to prosecution for crimes such as fraud conducted in relation to their parliamentary activities. [4]

Components

Parliamentary privilege has two main components:

History

The doctrine was first enshrined in law after the Glorious Revolution following the passage of the Bill of Rights 1689. [7] Prior to the Bill of Rights, Parliament had no statutory protection, but nevertheless had asserted both the freedom of speech and freedom from arrest, especially against what they perceived to be tyrannical acts by the king. Since the late 15th century, members of the Commons enjoyed 'an undefined right to freedom of speech, as a matter of tradition rather than by virtue of a privilege'. [8] One of the flashpoints that led to the English Civil War was the attempted arrest by King Charles I of the Five Members for treason, which Parliament viewed as being in violation of its ancient liberties.

Lewis Namier gives a number of examples of criminals escaping prosecution, public officials escaping censure and bankrupts escaping creditors, claiming that it was a significant reason for many men to try to become MPs. [9]

After the case of Stockdale v Hansard (1839) found that Hansard, although ordered by Parliament to publish transcripts of its debates, did not enjoy the protection of parliamentary privilege, Parliament immediately passed the Parliamentary Papers Act 1840, which gave absolute civil or criminal immunity to papers published by order of Parliament, and qualified immunity to any publication outside of Parliament that published extracts from Hansard without malice. [2]

Examples

There are multiple modern examples of Members exercising the right to parliamentary privilege, most notably related to freedom of speech and immunity from prosecution.

Select committees

Witnesses to parliamentary select committees also enjoy parliamentary privilege if their evidence is formally accepted. [14] As an example, this was used in 2009 by Private Eye editor Ian Hislop when giving evidence to a select committee on press standards, privacy and libel, to publish details of a legal threat received confidentially from the lawyers of Richard Granger. [15]

Case law

Legislation

Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland

Members of the Scottish Parliament do not have parliamentary privilege, [16] however the Scotland Act 1998 incorporates a number of legal protections for parliamentary debate and reporting, including absolute privilege for the purpose of the law of defamation, limits to the remedies which can be ordered by courts against the Parliament in civil cases, and qualified protection from strict liability contempt under the Contempt of Court Act 1981. [17]

Equivalent protections apply to proceedings of the Welsh and Northern Irish Assembles under the Government of Wales Act 2006 and the Northern Ireland Act 1998.

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Parliament of the United Kingdom</span> Supreme legislative body of 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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Injunction</span> Legal order to stop doing something

An injunction is an equitable remedy in the form of a special court order that compels a party to do or refrain from specific acts. "When a court employs the extraordinary remedy of injunction, it directs the conduct of a party, and does so with the backing of its full coercive powers." A party that fails to comply with an injunction faces criminal or civil penalties, including possible monetary sanctions and even imprisonment. They can also be charged with contempt of court.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Parliament of Canada</span> Canadian federal legislature

The Parliament of Canada is the federal legislature of Canada, seated at Parliament Hill in Ottawa, and is composed of three parts: the King, the Senate, and the House of Commons. By constitutional convention, the House of Commons is dominant, with the Senate rarely opposing its will. The Senate reviews legislation from a less partisan standpoint and may initiate certain bills. The monarch or his representative, normally the governor general, provides royal assent to make bills into law.

<i>Hansard</i> Transcripts of parliamentary debates in Britain and many Commonwealth countries

Hansard is the transcripts of parliamentary debates in Britain and many Commonwealth countries. It is named after Thomas Curson Hansard (1776–1833), a London printer and publisher, who was the first official printer to the Parliament at Westminster.

Parliamentary immunity, also known as legislative immunity, is a system in which political leadership position holders such as president, vice president, minister, governor, lieutenant governor, speaker, deputy speaker, member of parliament, member of legislative assembly, member of legislative council, senator, member of congress, corporator, councilor etc. are granted full immunity from legal prosecution, both civil prosecution and criminal prosecution, in the course of the execution of their official duties.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Parliament of India</span> Bicameral national legislature of India

The Parliament of India or Indian Parliament, is the supreme legislative body of the Republic of India. It is a bicameral legislature composed of the Rajya Sabha and the Lok Sabha. The President of India, in their role as head of the legislature, has full powers to summon and prorogue either house of Parliament or to dissolve the Lok Sabha, but they can exercise these powers only upon the advice of the Prime Minister and their Union Council of Ministers.

David Michael Chaytor is a former British Labour Party politician, who was the member of parliament (MP) for Bury North from 1997 to 2010. He was the first member of Parliament to be sentenced following the United Kingdom Parliamentary expenses scandal of 2009.

Parliamentary privilege is a legal immunity enjoyed by members of certain legislatures, in which legislators are granted protection against civil or criminal liability for actions done or statements made in the course of their legislative duties. It is common in countries whose constitutions are based on the Westminster system.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Parliament of Singapore</span> Legislature of Singapore

The Parliament of Singapore is the unicameral legislature of the Republic of Singapore, which governs the country alongside the president of Singapore. Largely based upon the Westminster system, the Parliament is made up of Members of Parliament (MPs) who are elected, as well as Non-constituency Members of Parliament (NCMPs) and Nominated Members of Parliament (NMPs) who are appointed. Following the 2020 general election, 93 MPs and two NCMPs from three political parties were elected to the 14th Parliament. Throughout the sitting of Parliament, nine NMPs are usually appointed by the president on a biennial basis.

The Speech or Debate Clause is a clause in the United States Constitution. The clause states that "The Senators and Representatives" of Congress "shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony, and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their attendance at the Session of their Respective Houses, and in going to and from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place."

In countries with a parliamentary system of government, contempt of parliament is the offence of obstructing the legislature in the carrying out of its functions, or in the hindering any legislator in the performance of their duties.

Stockdale v Hansard (1839) 9 Ad & El 1 is a United Kingdom constitutional law case in which the Parliament of the United Kingdom unsuccessfully challenged the common law of parliamentary privilege, leading to legislative reform.

Carter-Ruck is a British law firm founded by Peter Carter-Ruck. The firm specialises in libel, privacy, international law and commercial disputes. The leading legal directories rank Carter-Ruck in the top tier of media, defamation and privacy lawyers in the UK.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Streisand effect</span> Increased awareness of information caused by efforts to suppress it

The Streisand effect is an unintended consequence of attempts to hide, remove, or censor information, where the effort instead increases public awareness of the information. The effect is named for American singer and actress Barbra Streisand, whose attorney's attempt in 2003 to suppress the publication of a photograph showing her clifftop residence in Malibu, taken to document coastal erosion in California, inadvertently drew far greater attention to the previously obscure photograph. The effect exemplifies psychological reactance, a kind of 'reverse psychology' effect, in which the attempt to hide information instead makes it more interesting to seek out and propagate.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Article 14 of the Constitution of Singapore</span> Guarantee of the freedom of speech

Article 14 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, specifically Article 14(1), guarantees to Singapore citizens the rights to freedom of speech and expression, peaceful assembly without arms, and association. However, the enjoyment of these rights may be restricted by laws imposed by the Parliament of Singapore on the grounds stated in Article 14(2) of the Constitution.

The British privacy injunctions controversy began in early 2011, when London-based tabloid newspapers published stories about anonymous celebrities that were intended to flout what are commonly known in English law as super-injunctions, where the claimant could not be named, and carefully omitting details that could not legally be published. In April and May 2011, users of non-UK hosted websites, including the social media website Twitter, began posting material connecting various British celebrities with injunctions relating to a variety of potentially scandalous activities. Details of the alleged activities by those who had taken out the gagging orders were also published in the foreign press, as well as in Scotland, where the injunctions had no legal force.

<i>CTB v News Group Newspapers Ltd</i> UK legal case

CTB v News Group Newspapers is an English legal case between Manchester United player Ryan Giggs, given the pseudonym CTB, and defendants News Group Newspapers Limited and model Imogen Thomas.

<i>R v Chaytor</i> 2010 judgment of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

R v Chaytor and others [2010] UKSC 52 was a 2010 judgment of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. The case concerned the trials of three former Members of Parliament for false accounting in relation to the parliamentary expenses scandal of 2009.

In English tort law, a super-injunction is a type of injunction that prevents publication of information that is in issue and also prevents the reporting of the fact that the injunction exists at all. The term was coined by a Guardian journalist covering the 2006 Ivory Coast toxic waste dump controversy that had resulted in Trafigura obtaining a controversial injunction. Due to their very nature media organisations are not able to report who has obtained a super-injunction without being in contempt of court.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Representative democracy in Singapore</span> Democratic system used in Singapore national elections

Singapore has a multi-party parliamentary system of representative democracy in which the President of Singapore is the head of state and the Prime Minister of Singapore is the head of government. Executive power is vested in the President and the Cabinet. Cabinet has the general direction and control of the government and is collectively responsible to the Parliament. There are three separate branches of government: the legislature, executive and judiciary.

References

  1. ↑ "Parliamentary privilege - Glossary page". UK Parliament. Retrieved 26 October 2018.
  2. 1 2 Hutton, Mark; Natzler, David, eds. (2019). "Protections for publication outside Parliament of parliamentary proceedings". Erskine May: Parliamentary Practice (25th ed.). Parliament of the United Kingdom.
  3. ↑ Bush, Stephen (19 December 2018). "Peterborough Labour MP Fiona Onasanya found guilty of perverting the course of justice". New Statesman. Retrieved 11 October 2022.
  4. ↑ "Q&A: Parliamentary privilege". BBC News. 11 June 2010. Retrieved 11 October 2022.
  5. ↑ "MPs' Guide to Procedure: Freedom of speech". UK Parliament. Retrieved 21 January 2024.
  6. 1 2 Savage, Michael (27 October 2018). "Lord Hain named Philip Green 'to promote justice and liberty'". The Guardian . ISSN   0029-7712 . Retrieved 19 November 2019.
  7. ↑ Verkaik, Robert (9 February 2010). "The Big Question: What is parliamentary privilege, and is it being abused?" . The Independent . Archived from the original on 25 May 2022. Retrieved 26 October 2018.
  8. ↑ Hutton, Mark; Natzler, David, eds. (2019). "Freedom of speech". Erskine May: Parliamentary Practice (25th ed.). Parliament of the United Kingdom.
  9. ↑ Page 60,Lewis Namier, The Structure of Politics at the Accession of George III (2nd edition - London: St Martin's Press, 1957)
  10. ↑ Staff reporter (16 October 2009). "How the Trafigura story came to be told". the Guardian. Retrieved 5 March 2022.
  11. ↑ "Ryan Giggs named by MP as injunction footballer". BBC News. 23 May 2011. Retrieved 11 October 2022.
  12. ↑ "SDLP leader Colum Eastwood names Soldier F using parliamentary privilege". BelfastTelegraph.co.uk. 13 July 2021. ISSN   0307-1235 . Retrieved 9 July 2023.
  13. ↑ MP uses parliamentary privilege to name Russian oligarchs, 23 February 2022, retrieved 5 March 2022
  14. ↑ "Guide for witnesses giving written or oral evidence to a House of Commons select committee" (PDF). parliament.uk. February 2016. Retrieved 26 September 2023.
  15. ↑ ( Leveson Inquiry , Royal Courts of Justice 17 January 2012)("Jay: And Schillings was his solicitors. Can you just remind us what happened there? Hislop: The journalist in question put a number of questions to Mr Granger, and then, rather than reply to them, we had a threatening letter from his lawyers saying, "These are private and confidential matters", and again, this was the man who under whose on whose watch, under whose directorship, a vast amount of public money had been effectively wasted, something like £12 billion. You can take whatever the last estimate is on this utterly useless system which we'd been writing about for quite a long time. So we thought it was a reasonable question to find out what he was doing next: is he going back into public employ? Is he a consultant? Where has he ended up? But he said, "This is private, this is none of your business", and his lawyers sent that letter, and when they send that letter, the immediate question is: how much is it worth fighting this? Is it worth going on with this? How much is this going to cost? Do we need this as well as whatever else we're doing? Jay: The letter itself from Schillings I think was put in evidence before the Select Committee. Hislop: Yes. Jay: What did Private Eye do in response to that letter? Did it publish? Hislop: Well, I read it out under privilege in that committee, so I didn't have to worry about any further ramifications."), Text .
  16. ↑ "Scotland needs to think once again about strengthening its institutions". British Politics and Policy at LSE. 7 April 2021. Retrieved 4 May 2021.
  17. ↑ Tickell, Andrew (2022). "The fragile parliamentary privilege of devolved legislatures: feature or bug?". Public Law: 376–385 – via Westlaw.

Further reading

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.