Parliamentary Privilege And Criminal Liability
What is Parliamentary Privilege?
Parliamentary privilege refers to the special legal immunities and rights enjoyed by members of Parliament (MPs) and Houses of Parliament, primarily to ensure their freedom of speech and effectiveness in performing their legislative functions.
The most significant privilege is freedom of speech within Parliament — statements made during parliamentary proceedings cannot be the subject of civil or criminal proceedings, including defamation and, in some contexts, criminal liability.
Purpose of Parliamentary Privilege
To allow free and uninhibited debate on matters of public interest.
To protect MPs and peers from outside interference or intimidation.
To safeguard the independence of Parliament as a legislative body.
Limits of Parliamentary Privilege
It applies only within parliamentary proceedings.
It does not extend to actions outside Parliament, such as public statements, or conduct unrelated to parliamentary functions.
It does not provide immunity from all criminal liability — only certain acts and statements directly connected to parliamentary business.
Parliamentary Privilege and Criminal Liability
The key question is: To what extent are MPs immune from criminal liability for actions or statements made in or related to parliamentary proceedings?
MPs generally have immunity for speech and debates within Parliament (Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689).
However, they are not immune for criminal acts unrelated to parliamentary proceedings, such as corruption or fraud.
The courts often weigh public interest in freedom of speech against the need to uphold the rule of law.
⚖️ Landmark Cases on Parliamentary Privilege and Criminal Liability
1. Stockdale v. Hansard (1839) 9 Ad & El 1
Facts:
Hansard, the official printer of parliamentary papers, published a report accusing Stockdale of publishing obscene books.
Issue:
Was Hansard protected by parliamentary privilege from defamation claims?
Held:
The court held that privilege applies only to statements made during parliamentary proceedings, not to their publication outside Parliament.
Importance:
Established that parliamentary privilege does not protect publication of defamatory material outside Parliament.
2. R v. Chaytor and Others [2010] UKSC 52
Facts:
MPs and Lords charged with false accounting related to expense claims.
Issue:
Did parliamentary privilege protect MPs from criminal prosecution for fraudulent expenses?
Held:
Supreme Court held parliamentary privilege does not protect MPs from criminal liability for fraud or false accounting; privilege only protects speech and proceedings, not criminal acts.
Importance:
Defined the limits of privilege concerning criminal conduct.
3. Bradlaugh v. Gossett (1884) 12 QBD 271
Facts:
Charles Bradlaugh, an MP-elect, was initially prevented from taking his seat due to his atheism.
Issue:
Was the refusal to allow him to take his oath protected by parliamentary privilege?
Held:
The court ruled that the matter was a purely parliamentary question; courts could not interfere.
Importance:
Confirmed exclusive jurisdiction of Parliament over its own proceedings.
4. R v. Murphy [1920] 2 KB 42
Facts:
A journalist was charged with publishing false statements allegedly made by an MP during Parliament.
Issue:
Was the journalist immune because of parliamentary privilege?
Held:
The court ruled that publication of parliamentary proceedings is privileged, but the journalist could be liable if he added falsehoods or comments.
Importance:
Distinguished protection of original parliamentary statements from additional commentary.
5. Prebble v. Television New Zealand Ltd [1995] 1 AC 321
Facts:
A former MP sued for defamation based on allegations made in the House of Commons and repeated on TV.
Issue:
Did parliamentary privilege protect repetition of parliamentary statements in media?
Held:
House of Lords ruled that privilege protects statements made in Parliament, but not their republication outside Parliament unless fair and accurate.
Importance:
Clarified limits on extending privilege to external media.
6. Pepper v. Hart [1993] AC 593
Facts:
Parliamentary debates were used to interpret ambiguous legislation in court.
Issue:
Could statements made in Parliament be used as evidence in court?
Held:
The House of Lords held that statements in Parliament can be referred to in court for statutory interpretation, without breaching privilege.
Importance:
Showed how parliamentary proceedings interact with legal processes.
7. R v. Pocock (1754) 1 Leach 193
Facts:
A person was prosecuted for publishing a report on parliamentary proceedings.
Issue:
Was the publication protected by privilege?
Held:
Court held only official and authorized reports are protected; unauthorized publications are not privileged.
Importance:
Set precedent on protection of official parliamentary documents.
📊 Summary Table of Cases
| Case | Issue | Ruling | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stockdale v. Hansard (1839) | Defamation outside Parliament | No privilege outside Parliament | Limits publication privilege |
| R v. Chaytor (2010) | MPs criminal liability for expenses fraud | No privilege for fraud | Limits privilege to speech only |
| Bradlaugh v. Gossett (1884) | Parliamentary jurisdiction | Exclusive parliamentary authority | Courts won’t interfere in internal matters |
| R v. Murphy (1920) | Publication of parliamentary statements | Privilege for original, not added falsehoods | Distinguishes original speech vs commentary |
| Prebble v. TVNZ (1995) | Repetition of parliamentary statements | Privilege limited to Parliament | Limits media protection |
| Pepper v. Hart (1993) | Use of parliamentary debates in court | Allowed for statutory interpretation | Interaction between Parliament & judiciary |
| R v. Pocock (1754) | Publication of parliamentary reports | Only authorized reports privileged | Limits to official publication protection |
⚖️ Key Legal Principles
Parliamentary privilege protects freedom of speech within Parliament but does not provide immunity for criminal acts outside parliamentary proceedings.
Privilege is limited to official parliamentary proceedings; publication or actions outside may attract criminal liability.
MPs can be prosecuted for criminal conduct unrelated to parliamentary debates, including fraud or corruption.
Courts respect Parliament’s exclusive jurisdiction over its internal affairs, but this does not extend to shielding criminality.
Official parliamentary documents and speeches are privileged, but unauthorized publications or false additions are not.
Parliamentary privilege is a constitutional safeguard, not a shield for unlawful acts.
⚖️ Conclusion
Parliamentary privilege is crucial for democratic governance, ensuring free legislative debate without fear of legal consequences. However, it does not create a blanket immunity from criminal liability. Landmark cases clearly delineate the scope of this privilege, balancing parliamentary independence with the rule of law and accountability.
RELATED Blog
0 comments