header-logo header-logo

06 August 2010
Issue: 7429 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Public law

R v Chaytor and others [2010] EWCA Crim 1910, [2010] All ER (D) 335 (Jul)

Parliamentary privilege or immunity from criminal prosecution had never attached to ordinary criminal activities by members of Parliament. With the necessary exception in relation to the exercise of freedom of speech, it was difficult to envisage circumstances in which the performance of the core responsibilities of a member of Parliament might require or permit him or her to commit a crime, or in which the commission of crime could form part of the proceedings in the House of Commons for the purposes of Art 9 of the Bill of Rights.

Equally, it could not be discerned from principle or authority that privilege or immunity in relation to which such conduct might arise merely because the allegations were based on activities which had taken place “within the walls” of Parliament. The defendants in the instant case were alleged to have taken advantage of the allowances scheme designed to enable them to perform their important public duties as members of Parliament to commit crimes of

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

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Construction team bolstered by hire of senior consultant duo

Switalskis—four appointments

Switalskis—four appointments

Firm expands residential conveyancing team with quadruple appointment

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

Private client team welcomes senior associatein Worcester

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