PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE: ALLIGHAN AND WALKDEN CASES
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1948.tb00084.x |
| Date | 01 April 1948 |
| Published date | 01 April 1948 |
| Author | O. Hood Phillips |
REPORTS
OF
COMMITTEES
PARLIAMENTARY
PRIVILEQE
:
ALLIQMN
AND
WALKDEN
cum
The
Allighan
Case.
MR. ALLIQHAN,
M.P.,
wrote
an article in the
World’s
Press
Nmvs
asserting that private and confidential information
as
to
what
took place
at
Parliamentary party meetings was conveyed by
Members
of
Parliament present at such meetings
to
newspapers
;
that one way such information was obtained was in return
for
consideration -paid by newspapers
in
the
form
of
a
retaining
fee,
ad
hoc payment
or
payment in kind by personal publicity; and
that another way was
to
obtain such information from Members
under the influence of intoxicating drinks paid for
by
news-
papers’ representatives. The
matter
was referred
to
the Com-
mittee
of
Privileges
(1047,
13.
C.
Pap.
188)’
who found there was
no
evidence
to
justify the general charges.
Two
exceptional cases
were those
of
Mr. Allighan himself, who had been sclling reports
of
inter alia private party meetings to the
Evening
Standard
for
E80
a
week, and
Mr.
Walkden, whose casc is discussed below.
The Committee
of
Privileges described the Allighan case
as
one
of
great seriousness,
and
nlso
of much difficulty from the
point of view of the law and custom
of
Parliament.
They
pointed out that Parliament has no right to extend its
privileges
beyond those already recognised, though absence
of
an exact
precedent does not; in itself show that
a
pnrticular matter doeo
not come within some rccogniscd principle
of
Parliamentary
privilege; and that the right to punish for contempt is not
r’estricted to enses where some actual privilege has been infringed.
The House has
a
long-recognised right
to
punish
as
a
contempt
of Parliament the publication
of
imputations reflccting
on
the
dignity of the House
or
of
any Member in
his
capacity
as
such.
The novelty
of
this case was that the statements referred
mainly
to
private meetings,
the
practiee
of
holding which has
become well established and,
in
the words of the Committee,
‘must now be taken to form
a
normal and cveryday incident
of
Parliamentary procedure without which the business
of
Parliament
could not conveniently be conducted
’.
Attendance at meetings
held within the precincts during
a
Parliamentary session
is
normally confined
to
Members as such. The Committee’s con-
clusion on this point was that
‘
attendnnce
of
Members at
Q
private party meeting held in the precincts
of
the Palace of West-
minster during the Parliamentary session,
to
discuss Parliamentary
innttcrs connected with the current
or
future proceedings
of
214
To continue reading
Request your trial