Does parliamentary privilege extend to the extra-parliamentary repetition of evidence previously given before a select committee? Neil Parpworth reports
Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689 provides that: “The freedom of speech, and debates or proceedings in Parliament, ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place outside of Parliament.”
The constitutional importance of Art 9 is self-evident. It serves to protect what takes place in Parliament from legal challenge before the courts. It upholds the principles of freedom of speech and freedom of debate. It ensures that MPs and peers are protected against the laws of libel in respect of views expressed on the floor of either chamber, or within the precincts of the Palace of Westminster.
Until the landmark decision in Pepper v Hart [1993] AC 593, [1993] 1 All ER 42, Art 9 was the basis of the exclusionary rule that Hansard, the official record of Parliamentary proceedings, could not be consulted to determine the meaning of a statutory provision. In Prebble v Television New Zealand [1995] 1 AC
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=961ae4db_1)
95ca96e3d47f4eff8d147c4f0df17c77.tmb-mov69x69.png?sfvrsn=3db5d86b_1)
