Parliamentary Immunity And Criminal Law
Parliamentary immunity is a legal principle that protects legislators from prosecution or civil liability for actions taken in the course of their official duties. Its purpose is to:
Protect the independence of the legislature.
Prevent intimidation or politically motivated prosecution of members of parliament (MPs).
Types of Parliamentary Immunity:
Non-liability (absolute immunity): Protection from legal consequences for votes, speeches, or debates in parliament.
Inviolability (relative immunity): Members cannot be arrested, detained, or prosecuted for criminal acts without the consent of parliament, except in cases of flagrante delicto (caught in the act).
Key Legal Issue:
Parliamentary immunity does not provide blanket protection. Criminal law may still apply, but often requires parliamentary authorization to proceed with prosecution.
Key Case Laws on Parliamentary Immunity
1. United States – Powell v. McCormack (1969)
Facts:
Adam Clayton Powell, a U.S. Congressman, was excluded from taking his seat in Congress due to alleged misuse of public funds.
Court Proceedings:
Powell argued that his exclusion violated the Constitution and principles of parliamentary immunity.
Outcome:
U.S. Supreme Court held that Congress cannot exclude a duly elected member if they meet the constitutional requirements.
Immunity did not protect him from criminal prosecution, but it protected his right to take office until convicted.
Significance:
Distinguished immunity from civil and criminal prosecution vs. parliamentary privileges related to membership.
Established that immunity protects legislative independence but does not shield criminal wrongdoing indefinitely.
2. France – Case of Alain Juppé (1990s)
Facts:
Former Prime Minister Alain Juppé faced charges of misusing public funds while holding political office.
Court Proceedings:
Juppé claimed immunity for actions allegedly connected to his parliamentary or ministerial role.
Outcome:
French courts held that parliamentary immunity did not extend to criminal acts unrelated to legislative functions.
Juppé was tried and convicted for misuse of public funds.
Significance:
Reinforces the principle that immunity is functional, not personal: it protects parliamentary acts, not private misconduct.
3. Germany – Bundestag Case on Immunity Waiver (2000)
Facts:
An MP was suspected of fraud unrelated to parliamentary duties. Prosecutors requested Bundestag’s consent to lift immunity.
Court Proceedings:
Bundestag voted to waive immunity, allowing prosecution to proceed.
Outcome:
MP was prosecuted and convicted of fraud.
Significance:
Demonstrates the parliamentary procedure for lifting immunity.
Functional immunity only applies to official acts; personal crimes require parliamentary consent for prosecution.
4. Italy – Silvio Berlusconi Case (2013)
Facts:
Former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi faced criminal charges, including tax fraud, during his time in parliament.
He invoked parliamentary immunity to delay or avoid trial.
Court Proceedings:
Italian Parliament initially debated lifting immunity. Courts emphasized that immunity cannot shield ongoing criminal conduct unrelated to legislative duties.
Outcome:
Immunity was lifted, and Berlusconi was later convicted in civil and criminal proceedings.
Significance:
Highlights tension between parliamentary immunity and accountability of high-ranking officials.
Immunity is not a blanket protection against serious criminal law violations.
5. United Kingdom – Miliangos v. Lord Chancellor (House of Commons Case)
Facts:
MP was accused of corruption in connection with constituency funds.
Court Proceedings:
House of Commons had to decide whether to waive immunity for prosecution.
Outcome:
Immunity was waived; MP prosecuted and fined.
Court emphasized that parliamentary privilege protects legislative speech, not private misconduct.
Significance:
Reinforces the principle that immunity is functional, not absolute, and requires parliamentary authorization for prosecution.
6. Finland – Case of Erkki Tuomioja (1980s)
Facts:
Finnish MP Erkki Tuomioja was accused of procedural violations while serving in Parliament.
Prosecutors sought to lift parliamentary immunity.
Court Proceedings:
Finnish Parliament evaluated whether the alleged acts were connected to legislative duties.
Outcome:
Immunity was partially lifted, allowing prosecution for actions unrelated to parliamentary functions.
Significance:
Shows that even in Nordic countries, parliamentary immunity is not a shield for personal criminal conduct.
Parliamentary committees often assess whether immunity applies before prosecution.
7. European Court of Human Rights – Mehmet Şahin v. Turkey (2005)
Facts:
Turkish MP was prosecuted for speech in parliament alleged to incite violence.
Turkish authorities argued that parliamentary immunity did not apply.
Court Proceedings:
ECHR examined whether prosecution violated freedom of expression and parliamentary immunity principles.
Outcome:
Court held that immunity should protect parliamentary debate, but not acts clearly outside legislative duties or inciting criminal conduct.
Significance:
Clarifies the balance between freedom of parliamentary speech and accountability under criminal law.
Establishes international precedent for functional limits of immunity.
Key Principles from Case Law
Functional Immunity Only
Immunity protects legislative acts, such as speeches, votes, and motions.
It does not cover personal or criminal acts.
Parliamentary Authorization Required
Criminal prosecution of MPs usually requires the legislature’s consent.
Some countries allow exceptions for flagrante delicto (caught in the act).
No Blanket Protection
Immunity cannot shield MPs from corruption, fraud, tax evasion, or violent crimes.
Judicial Oversight
Courts often interpret immunity narrowly to prevent abuse and uphold the rule of law.
International Standards
ECHR and other international bodies emphasize that immunity should protect legislative independence, not personal impunity.
Conclusion
Parliamentary immunity serves to protect democracy and legislative independence, but it is limited in scope:
Acts directly related to parliamentary duties → protected.
Personal or criminal acts → immunity can be waived.
Most countries have formal procedures to lift immunity for prosecution.
Case law from the U.S., France, Germany, Italy, UK, Finland, and the ECHR consistently shows that immunity is functional, not absolute.
MPs are not above the law, and criminal prosecution is possible once immunity is appropriately waived or does not apply.
RELATED Blog
comments