Skip to main content

The rights to communicate with members of parliament

There have been discussions about whether there is a domestic precedent whereby the right to talk to MPs about issues of public interest is protected by parliament. This already happens in Australia.

The following case from the parliamentary journals in 1699 is exactly that. John Kelly provided information about malpractise to a number of MPs. That was not provided as part of a petition, but merely as a summary of a problem. He was then jailed. Parliament investigated the situation.

That is the stage I have reached with my request for parliament to investigate hyperinjunctions.

There are other examples from the 1600s and 1700s on my flickr account and a summary follows the image.
kellydetails

Parliamentary Privilege has been primarily applied to protect members. That is because most actions which would be in contempt of parliament will directly affect members. There are, however, a number of instances where non-members have been protected by parliamentary privilege.

The use of privilege to protect witnesses at Committees is well known. However, there have also been a number of cases where parliamentary privilege has been used to protect non-members who are providing information to Parliamentarians. Documentary evidence from the parliamentary journals is attached.

In 1624 the Master of the Felt-makers was arrested whilst attending The House to prefer a petition. The House considered he had protection of the house to prefer the petition and established a committee to consider whether the arrest itself was a breach of privilege. (I 766)

In 1696 Thomas Kemp and other Hackney Coachmen were arrested as a consequence of proceedings by Richard Gee, a Commissioner of Hackney Coaches. The House concluded that Mr Gee was guilty of a breach of Privilege and guilty of a high misdemeanor and was to be imprisoned by the Serjeant. (XI 599, 699)

In 1699 John Kelly was imprisoned in consequence of having given Members and abstract of several articles against the Commissioners of Victualling. That was referred to the privileges committee (XIII 224)

There have also been many actions to protect letters written to Members and from Members from being opened or diverted. In 1666 Edward Roberts was imprisoned for trying to charge for letters. In 1689 a case was referred relating to Hull. In 1689 it was resolved that “breaking open Letters directed to or sent from Members is a breach of Privilege;”

What is important about this is that it demonstrates that private communication between citizens (or subjects) and members of parliament does have a limited privilege. Any attempts to prevent this communication are, therefore, a Contempt of Parliament.

Comments

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. …

Statement re Police investigation into Harassment and Perverting the Course of Justice.

It was recently reported that the police were not investigating the allegations of Perverting the Course of Justice that I had made. This came as a surprise to me as I had been told for some time that my allegations were to be considered once the VRR had been rejected. I have now had a very constructive meeting with Staffordshire police on Friday 29th June 2018 and the misunderstandings have been resolved. At that meeting the evidence relating to the perversion of the course of justice and the harassment campaign against my family were discussed. The police have decided to investigate both the perversion of the course of justice and also the harassment campaign. I would like to thank them for changing their decision and I accept their apology for the way in which they did that. I am also in possession of written confirmation a police force would be investigating allegations that a vulnerable witness has been harassed for trying to expose the campaign against me. I hope that the aut…

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).

KING’S BENCH DIVISION

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.

LORD HEWART CJ:
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…