Parliament: Ex-MPs on expenses charges take case to highest court

Three former Labour MPs accused of fiddling their expenses went to the highest court in the land yesterday in a final attempt to avoid criminal trials.

David Chaytor, Elliot Morley and Jim Devine, who deny theft by false accounting, claim that any investigation into their expenses claims and the imposition of any sanctions "should lie within the hands of Parliament".

Nigel Pleming QC, representing Chaytor and Devine, told a panel of nine Supreme Court Justices that the Parliamentary expenses scheme was part of proceedings in the House.

As such, the men were protected by Parliamentary privilege.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

"I also wish to emphasise as firmly as I can on behalf of these former MPs that this is not, and never has been, an attempt to take them above or outside the law."

He said the House had "the power to punish, and to recover any monies wrongly claimed, and is well capable of investigating allegations, including allegations of dishonesty, made against its members".

Mr Pleming said it had been recognised in the courts below that the case raised important issues of principle and was without direct precedent.

It may be some time before the Supreme Court has the chance to consider the scope of Parliamentary privilege, he said.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, heading a panel of three Court of Appeal judges, earlier this year upheld a ruling by a judge at Southwark Crown Court in central London that they were not protected by privilege.

Lord Pannick QC, representing the Crown Prosecution Service, will be arguing during the two-day hearing that parliamentary privilege or immunity from criminal prosecution has never, attached to ordinary criminal activities by MPs.

Former Bury North MP Chaytor, 61, of Todmorden; ex-Scunthorpe MP

Morley, 58, of Winterton, north Lincolnshire; and Devine, 57, of Bathgate, West Lothian, formerly MP for Livingston, are all on unconditional bail and due to face separate trials at Southwark Crown Court.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

The three MPs are claiming that the criminal charges against them involve impugning proceedings in Parliament because statements and claims made by them were made in the course of Parliamentary proceedings.

Related topics: