Skip to main content

Freedom of Speech, Privilege and Expenses

There is a lot of confusion in the media about the attempt by those being prosecuted for Fraud to claim that the expeneses regime falls within Article IX of the Bill of Rights.

It is important that MPs are allowed to speak freely in the Houses of Parliament about issues. What you do not want is people being tied up in legal proceedings and unable to speak the truth about the problems faced by their constituents.

I have provided considerable information to the Standards and Privileges committee in part based upon work done by an Irish Barrister Kieron Wood. This submission is privileged and as such I cannot publish it at the moment. It will, however, be published later.

Whether something falls within the ambit of Article IX of the Bill of Rights is determined both by the courts and also by parliament. This is the principle of comity.

It is quite clear that this does not include the salary and expenses of a Member of Parliament. If it did, then there would be no tax. Furthermore legislation has made specific reference to the second home expenses of MPs. That indicates that parliament has legislated to ensure that the treatment of MPs expenses and salary is the same as for any other role.

The Labour Party's solicitors may intend to try this out as a defence, but it can easily be knocked out by the CPS. There is a mass of precedent that justifies this as well as various statutes in place.

The underlying test for contempt of parliament is whether something outside parliament has the effect of preventing parliament doing its job. I cannot see anyone arguing the ludicrous case that it is necessary for MPs to fiddle expenses so that they can do their job.


Jerry said…
John, been pondering this whole matter as David Chaytor was my MP.

Any Person in the EU who is charged with a criminal offence will be entitled to Legal advice and representation at the expense of the public purse.

Would this still enable the 3 MP's and 1 Peer to claim for legal aid as I believe its there right to do this.

If this is the case and the Lawyers for the Labour party and Cons, would they screw the already over stretched legal aid system.

I can see these 4 trials costing millions of punds in any case.

Would the prosecution of the already disgraced MP's be of any benefit to the UK Tax Payer, I cannot see that it would, it is not just finding the MPs guilty, there still is the hidden costs the Tax payer would face, like the Probation service, CPs and any other testement that would be required. I think its all first offences for the MP's as such,checks and balances would be made.

what ever happens in Westminister Mags in the next few weeks will obviously be adjourned and sent to A higher court for determination.

This will take weeks of planning, all the while costing millions in over charged lawyers fees.

Just confused John, as you know, I know the courts all too well, I am just looking at this from my point of view, and think deep down I cannot see any benefit of charging let alone expecting these MP's to go to Jail. Yes they got their hands caught in the Till and they must face the punishment but look at the way I see it.

A benefit Cheat might just get a fine, ordered to pay the money back, rarely do they go to Jail, I cannot see any difference with that to what the MP's have done. The Tax payer and the Voter was still Screwed.

I am not defending the Mp's, far from it, Just thinking Logical.

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

I have only just found this one which I think is accurately reported below (but if it is not please give me an accurate report).


R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

November 9 1923

Editor’s comments in bold.

Here, the magistrates’ clerk retired with the bench when they were considering a charge of dangerous driving. The clerk belonged to a firm of solicitors acting in civil proceedings for the other party to the accident. It was entirely irrelevant that there had been no evidence of actual influence brought to bear on the magistrates, and the conviction was duly quashed.

It is clear that the deputy clerk was a member of the firm of solicitors engaged in the conduct of proceedings for damages against the applicant in respect of the same collision as that which gave rise to the charge that the justices were considering. It is said, and, no doubt, truly, that when that gentleman retired in the usual way with the justices, taking with him the…