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

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll