header-logo header-logo

30 May 2025 / Neil Parpworth
Issue: 8118 / Categories: Features , Human rights , Constitutional law , Contempt , EU
printer mail-detail

Parliamentary privilege & the Strasbourg court

220713
Neil Parpworth analyses Green v UK, in which the European Court of Human Rights upheld parliamentarians’ protection
  • An examination of the decision in Green v UK [2025] ECHR 91, in which the European Court of Human Rights scrutinised Lord Hain’s naming of Philip Green under parliamentary privilege, in spite of a court injunction.
  • The court upheld the UK’s protection of parliamentary speech, ruling that requiring further controls would undermine the separation of powers and was not supported by European consensus.
  • However, the court acknowledged the seriousness of the case and recommended regular review.

Approximately six and a half years ago, at the conclusion of a debate on an unrelated issue, the former cabinet minister and Labour life peer Lord Peter Hain made a short personal statement in the House of Lords:

‘My Lords, having been contacted by someone intimately involved in the case of a powerful businessman using non-disclosure agreements and substantial payments to conceal the truth about serious and repeated sexual harassment, racist abuse and

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll