header-logo header-logo

18 June 2010
Issue: 7422 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Judge rules on privilege

Three Labour MPs and a Tory Peer accused of false accounting over their expenses claims cannot invoke Parliamentary privilege and could now face a criminal trial, the Crown court has held.

Conservative Peer Lord Hanningfield and former Labour MPs Elliot Morley, David Chayter and Jim Devine all deny theft by false accounting.
Delivering his judgment at Southwark Crown Court last week, Mr Justice Saunders rejected arguments that only Parliament could hear their case. He said he could see “no logical, practical or moral justification for a claim for expenses being covered by privilege” adding that he could  see “no legal justification for it either”.

Saunders J went on to criticise misconceived comments about the case in the media and from politicians.

“It has been common ground during argument that, if privilege does cover the subject matter of the indictment, it is the privilege of Parliament and not the privilege of any individual member,” he said.

“Therefore, even if the defendants had wished to waive privilege they could not have done so, and comments from prominent politicians to the effect that they could, were misconceived.”

Had the defence not submitted arguments on the basis of privilege, he said, he would have asked for independent counsel to be instructed to ensure the issue was properly argued. Permission was given to appeal.
 

Issue: 7422 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Investigations and corporate crime expert joins as partner

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Veteran funds specialist joins investment funds team

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Firm enhances competition practice with London partner hire

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll