I link to today's judgment impressively quickly uploaded onto Bailii.
This relates to the question as to whether expenses fraud is covered by parliamentary privilege (readers of this weblog will know that I believe that it is not).
The judgment is worth reading for those interested in the law of parliament.
There are some interesting precedents that I have not heard of before such as Att-Gen of Ceylon v de Livera [1963] AC 13, which is referred to in paragraph 33.
It is interesting that one of the cases referred to involves Scientology in that there has been a more recent case of constraints on the freedom of speech of a councillor who critised scientology.
This relates to the question as to whether expenses fraud is covered by parliamentary privilege (readers of this weblog will know that I believe that it is not).
The judgment is worth reading for those interested in the law of parliament.
There are some interesting precedents that I have not heard of before such as Att-Gen of Ceylon v de Livera [1963] AC 13, which is referred to in paragraph 33.
It is interesting that one of the cases referred to involves Scientology in that there has been a more recent case of constraints on the freedom of speech of a councillor who critised scientology.
Comments