R v Chaytor [2010] UKSC 52

Parliamentary privilege is a concept in democratic governance granting legislators certain immunities and protections to perform their duties without fear of legal repercussions. 

• This privilege encompasses freedom of speech within parliamentary proceedings, immunity from civil or criminal liability for statements made in Parliament, and the authority to regulate its own affairs independently.

• This framework ensures that lawmakers can debate and deliberate on issues of national importance without external interference, fostering open dialogue and accountability to the public.

MPs' expense claims do not enjoy parliamentary privilege.

• These claims are subject to scrutiny and accountability both within Parliament and by external oversight bodies, aiming to uphold transparency and public trust in the use of public funds. 

• This distinction shows the responsibility of elected officials to maintain ethical standards in financial matters, balancing the privilege of parliamentary immunity with the accountability expected in the management of public resources.

The Appellants (MPs) were accused of submitting false claims for parliamentary allowances.

• These claims were allegedly misleading in material particulars, which constituted the offence of false accounting.

• The claims were made under a system overseen by the House of Commons, involving allowances that MPs could claim for parliamentary activities.

• The system was governed by resolutions of the House and supervised by committees such as the Members Estimate Committee and the Committee on Members’ Allowances.

The MPs argued that their prosecution was precluded by parliamentary privilege, specifically under Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689, which protects freedom of speech and debates in Parliament.

The court deliberated on whether the offences fell within the exclusive cognizance of Parliament.

• It concluded that the alleged offences of false accounting did not directly involve the core legislative or deliberative functions of Parliament.

• Therefore, they could be prosecuted in the ordinary courts, notwithstanding parliamentary privilege claims.

The court noted that Parliament had cooperated with the police during investigations and had not asserted exclusive cognizance over such matters in the past.

• This suggested that Parliament had effectively waived any privilege that might otherwise apply.

The MPs argued that their prosecution infringed upon parliamentary privilege, which historically protects freedom of speech and debates in Parliament.

• The court examined whether the alleged offences fell within the exclusive cognizance of Parliament, meaning whether they were matters that only Parliament could adjudicate upon.

• The court concluded that the offences of false accounting, as alleged, did not directly implicate the core functions of Parliament such as legislative or deliberative activities.

• Therefore, they did not fall within the realm of exclusive cognizance.

The judges emphasized that while parliamentary privilege is significant, it can be waived or relinquished by Parliament itself.

• The court’s role was to determine whether the matter fell within the scope of parliamentary privilege or whether it could be prosecuted in ordinary courts.

The court dismissed the appeals of the MPs, affirming that their prosecution for false accounting could proceed in the ordinary criminal courts.

The judgment clarified that parliamentary privilege does not shield MPs from prosecution for offences that are considered "ordinary crimes" under the law.

Parliamentary privilege is important part of democratic governance, providing legislators with essential immunities and protections to fulfill their duties without fear of legal repercussions.

• This privilege includes the freedom of speech within parliamentary proceedings, shielding MPs from civil or criminal liability for statements made in Parliament, and the autonomy to self-regulate parliamentary affairs.

• These safeguards enable lawmakers to engage in robust debates on national issues, ensuring transparency and accountability to the public.

This privilege does not extend to MPs' expense claims, which are subject to rigorous scrutiny both within Parliament and by external oversight bodies.

• This dual oversight aims to maintain transparency and uphold public trust in the use of public funds.

• This distinction underscores the ethical responsibility of elected officials to adhere to high standards in financial matters, balancing the privilege of parliamentary immunity with the imperative of financial accountability.

While parliamentary privilege remains a vital protection for legislative functions, its scope is limited when it comes to criminal offences that do not directly implicate the core activities of Parliament.

Courts play a role in interpreting and applying these principles, ensuring that accountability and the rule of law are upheld alongside the privileges granted to lawmakers in democratic societies.