Legal Research

R v. Chaytor and Parliamentary Privilege

By Simon Fodden

At a meeting of lawyers yesterday, I heard one senior member refer to the decision of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales in R v. Chaytor [2010] EWCA Crim 1910 as one of the best judgments he had read in a great many years. Intrigued, I took a look, and now I want to pass on to you the suggestion that you, too, read the judgment.

As the title of this post says, the case concerns a defence of parliamentary privilege. Criminal charges of fraud were laid against three members of the U.K. Parliament and one member of the House of Lords, alleging that the members claimed for expenses that were not incurred. (The specifics of the charges are reported in the U.K. Supreme Court judgment confirming the judgment of the Court of Appeal: [2010] UKSC 52.) The members argued that criminal proceedings against them were precluded by parliamentary privilege. It is the discussion and analysis of this claim that so impressed the senior lawyer and that I would commend to you.

The Court of Appeal bench was itself impressive, comprising the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, the Master of the Rolls, and the President of the Queen?s Bench Division. The decision was written by the Court, which began with an examination of the history of parliamentary privilege, the struggle to establish it, and its foundation as a right of the people. The language is clear and simple, yet imparting a sense of majesty to the matter. It’s not hard, I think, to imagine an undertone of scorn and, indeed, indignation, at the sordid nature of the crimes alleged when compared to the importance of the privilege argued. The analysis is well worth reading, but if you only have time to dip into the case, read the first part on the history.

It turns out that, according to a story in the news last week, Mr. Chaytor was recently convicted and sentenced to 18 months imprisonment; and the scandal has widened to include a number of other MPs, who, it is alleged, have also committed similar frauds.

[The judgment link is to BAILII, in HTML. I’ve done up a PDF of the judgment, which might be easier to read for some.)

Full post as published by Slaw.ca on January 20, 2011 (boomark / email).