R v Chaytor & Ors

Factual and Procedural Background

The appellants, hereafter referred to as the defendants, are members of Parliament—three from the House of Commons and one from the House of Lords—facing trial at the Crown Court at Southwark for alleged false accounting contrary to section 17(1)(b) of the Theft Act 1968, related to their parliamentary expenses claims. The allegations centrally involve dishonesty. A preparatory hearing was conducted under section 29 of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 to determine whether the criminal proceedings were barred by parliamentary privilege. Saunders J ruled that privilege did not preclude the prosecution, prompting these appeals focused on the scope of parliamentary privilege.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether parliamentary privilege, particularly under article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1688, precludes criminal prosecution of members of Parliament for dishonest claims for parliamentary expenses.
2. Whether the submission of expenses claims by members constitutes "proceedings in Parliament" protected by parliamentary privilege.
3. The extent and limits of parliamentary privilege in relation to criminal offences committed by members within Parliament.
4. The relationship and concurrent jurisdiction between Parliament and the courts in matters involving alleged criminal conduct by members.
5. The appropriateness of lifting reporting restrictions on proceedings related to parliamentary privilege issues.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Eliot's Case (1629)	Established that courts have no jurisdiction over words spoken or acts done in Parliament, but retain jurisdiction over criminal offences committed in Parliament.	Reaffirmed that freedom of speech in Parliament is absolute, but criminal acts are not protected by privilege.
Jay v Topham (1689)	Confirmed that courts have jurisdiction over criminal acts such as forcible actions, but not over words spoken in Parliament.	Supported distinction between privileged speech and criminal conduct within Parliament.
Burdett v Abbott (1811)	Affirmed Parliament's right to manage its own affairs and self-protection, but limited privilege to legislative functions.	Demonstrated privilege is tied to parliamentary functions, not immunity for criminal acts.
Stockdale v Hansard (1839)	Held that privilege protects freedom of speech and parliamentary proceedings within Parliament, but not publication outside Parliament.	Clarified limits of privilege to internal parliamentary proceedings.
Bradlaugh v Gossett (1884)	Confirmed absolute and exclusive jurisdiction of Parliament over its members and internal discipline, including officers acting on its behalf.	Confirmed no immunity from criminal prosecution for ordinary crimes committed by members in Parliament.
Att-Gen of Ceylon v de Livera [1963] AC 13	Privilege applies only to acts essential to a member's parliamentary function.	Supported the principle that privilege is confined to core parliamentary functions.
British Railways Board v Pickin [1974] AC 765	Courts will not inquire into internal parliamentary procedures or irregularities in legislative processes.	Reinforced the exclusivity of Parliament in managing its legislative processes.
Pepper (Inspector of Taxes) v Hart [1993] AC 593	Courts may refer to parliamentary debates for statutory interpretation without infringing article 9.	Clarified that use of parliamentary material by courts does not constitute questioning parliamentary proceedings.
R v Greenaway (1992) Central Criminal Court (Unreported)	Members of Parliament are subject to criminal law; immunity for corruption offences is not justified by parliamentary privilege.	Supported that criminal offences by members are not immune from prosecution.
Sharma v Browne-Antoine [2007] 1 WLR 780	Rule of law requires equal application of criminal law to all, including holders of high office.	Emphasized equality before the law and limited scope of immunities.
Prebble v Television New Zealand Limited [1995] 1 AC 321	Courts will not challenge what is said or done within Parliament in legislative or privilege protection functions.	Confirmed courts' deference to parliamentary privilege in core functions, but not beyond.
R v Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, ex parte Al Fayed [1998] 1 WLR 669	Functions of parliamentary committees and commissioners related to parliamentary proceedings are immune from judicial review.	Confirmed immunity of parliamentary internal procedures, not extending to criminal offences.
Buchanan v Jennings [2005] 1 AC 115	Privilege is comprehensive and absolute but confined to activities justifying such protection.	Supported limiting privilege to core parliamentary activities.
R v Leeds JJs ex p Sykes [1983] 1 WLR 132	Reporting restrictions apply to committal proceedings to protect fair trial rights.	Applied principles of fair trial and reporting restrictions to preparatory hearings.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by reaffirming the constitutional importance of parliamentary privilege, especially the freedom of speech enshrined in article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1688. It reviewed historical authorities, including Eliot's Case and subsequent decisions, to distinguish between privileged parliamentary speech and criminal conduct by members. The court emphasized that privilege protects the legislative process and core parliamentary functions, not ordinary criminal acts.

The court analyzed the nature of parliamentary expenses claims, concluding that submitting such claims is an administrative act directed to officials of the House, not a proceeding in Parliament or a statement made in the Houses or their committees. It rejected the argument that the submission of claims falls within article 9 privilege, noting that such claims are ancillary to parliamentary duties and do not involve the essential functions protected by privilege.

The court considered the report of the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, which supported a narrow scope of privilege limited to core parliamentary activities. It also noted that Parliament itself had not intervened to claim privilege in these prosecutions, indicating acceptance that privilege did not apply.

Further, the court highlighted the principle of equality before the law and that members of Parliament are subject to criminal law like any other citizen. It rejected the notion that parliamentary privilege provides immunity from prosecution for criminal offenses committed in Parliament, including fraudulent expense claims.

Regarding concurrent jurisdiction, the court acknowledged that both Parliament and the courts may have roles in disciplinary and criminal matters but emphasized that criminal prosecutions should proceed where appropriate, with Parliament deferring to the criminal process in such cases.

Finally, the court addressed reporting restrictions, balancing the importance of a fair trial with the public interest in open justice. It concluded that lifting restrictions on reporting the appeals was justified and would not prejudice any future trial.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED the appeals, affirming that parliamentary privilege under article 9 does not extend to criminal prosecutions of members of Parliament for dishonest claims for parliamentary expenses.

The direct effect is that the defendants may be prosecuted in the ordinary criminal courts without infringing parliamentary privilege. No new precedent was created beyond clarifying that privilege protects core parliamentary functions and speech but does not provide immunity for criminal conduct, even if committed within Parliament. The decision reinforces the principle of equality before the law and the separation of powers between Parliament and the judiciary.