R v Chaytor and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD COLLINS,LORD RODGER,LORD BROWN,LADY HALE,LORD PHILLIPS,LORD MANCE,LORD CLARKE,LORD KERR,LORD HOPE |
| Judgment Date | 01 December 2010 |
| Neutral Citation | [2010] UKSC 52 |
| Date | 01 December 2010 |
| Court | Supreme Court |
and others
[2010] UKSC 52
Lord Phillips, Presiden
Lord Hope, Deputy President
Lord Rodger
Lady Hale
Lord Brown
Lord Mance
Lord Collins
Lord Kerr
Lord Clarke
THE SUPREME COURT
Michaelmas Term
On appeal from: 2010 EWCA Crim 1910
First Appellant
Nigel Pleming QC
Julian Knowles
(Instructed by Steel & Shamash Solicitors)
Second Appellant
Edward Fitzgerald QC
Joseph Middleton
(Instructed by Steel & Shamash Solicitors)
Third Appellant
Nigel Pleming QC
Rebecca Trowler
(Instructed by Steel & Shamash Solicitors)
Respondent
Lord Pannick QC
Louis Mably
James Segan
(Instructed by Crown Prosecution Service Special Crime Division)
Intervener (written submissions)
Alun Jones QC
Rupert Bowers
(Instructed by Keystone Law Limited)
Introduction
Each of the appellants has been committed for trial at the Crown Court on charges of false accounting. I shall refer to them as "the defendants". The charges relate to claims in respect of parliamentary expenses and are alleged to have been committed when each defendant was a serving member of the House of Commons. A fourth defendant, Lord Hanningfield, who is a member of the House of Lords, faces similar charges. Each defendant and Lord Hanningfield is facing a separate trial but each of them has raised an important point of law. Each claims that criminal proceedings cannot be brought against him because they infringe parliamentary privilege. A single preparatory hearing pursuant to section 29 of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 was held to consider this point in relation to all four defendants. On 11 June 2010 Saunders J, sitting in Southwark Crown Court, ruled against the four defendants. All four appealed to the Court of Appeal. On 30 July 2010 that court, Lord Judge CJ, Lord Neuberger MR and Sir Anthony May, President of the Queen's Bench Division, dismissed their appeal. On 14 September 2010 the court certified that the appeal had raised a point of law of general public importance, refused permission to appeal to this court and granted a representation order for one leading counsel, one junior counsel and one solicitor to represent the four defendants jointly in the event of an application to this court for permission to appeal and any consequent appeal.
The defendants, but not Lord Hanningfield, sought permission to appeal. Lord Hanningfield sought permission to intervene. Permission was granted to him to intervene in writing for the limited purpose of drawing attention to any distinction between expenses schemes and privileges in the two Houses of Parliament. At the opening of the hearing the court granted permission to appeal.
On 10 November the court ordered that each of the three appeals be dismissed, for reasons to be delivered in due course. These are my reasons.
The charges
Each of the defendants has been charged with false accounting contrary to section 17(1)(b) of the Theft Act 1968, which provides in so far as material:
"False accounting
(1) Where a person dishonestly, with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another,-
…(b) in furnishing information for any purpose produces or makes use of any account, or any such record or document as aforesaid, which to his knowledge is or may be misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular;
he shall, on conviction on indictment, be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years.
(2) For purposes of this section a person who makes or concurs in making in an account or other document an entry which is or may be misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular, or who omits or concurs in omitting a material particular from an account or other document, is to be treated as falsifying the account or document."
Mr Morley is charged with making use of monthly expenses claim forms for additional costs allowance which, initially, claimed as mortgage interest sums which were in part repayments of capital and, latterly, made claims for repayment of mortgage interest after the mortgage had been repaid.
Mr Chaytor is charged with making use of an expenses claim form for incidental expenses provision in relation to two invoices relating to the supply of IT services when no such services had been supplied. He is further charged with making use of expenses claim forms for additional costs allowance in respect of payments of monthly rent when such payments had never been made.
Mr Devine is charged with making use of expenses claim forms for additional costs allowance and personal additional accommodation expenditure in respect of invoices relating to cleaning and maintenance services when no such services had been supplied. He is further charged with submitting expenses claim forms in respect of communications allowance and supporting invoices in respect of the supply of stationery when no such stationery had been supplied.
The claim forms which form the subject matter of all charges were submitted to the Fees Office of the House of Commons. Form ACA2 in respect of additional costs allowance contains a declaration, signed by the Member in the following form:
"I confirm that I incurred these costs wholly, exclusively and necessarily to enable me to stay overnight away from my only or main home for the purpose of performing my duties a Member of Parliament."
The issues of fact in each case would seem to be whether the expenses claimed were incurred and not the purpose for which they were incurred.
Entitlement to and administration of allowances
The entitlement of Members of Parliament to claim certain expenses dates back to 1911, but the system under which the claims with which the present appeals are concerned was introduced in 1971 and the circumstances in which such allowances and expenses may be claimed are determined by Resolutions of the House. On 29 January 2004 the House passed a Standing Order establishing the House of Commons Members Estimate Committee ("the Estimate Committee"), which is chaired by the Speaker. One of the functions of this Committee is to report to the House from time to time on the provisions of the Resolutions of the House relating to "expenditure charged to the Estimate for the House of Commons: Members", as codified and modified by the Committee. In effect the House itself is responsible for the overall scheme of allowances and the Estimate Committee is responsible for the detail.
The House of Commons (Administration) Act 1978 created the House of Commons Commission ("the Commission") consisting of the Speaker, the Leader of the House, a Member nominated by the Leader of the Opposition and three other Members, not being Ministers, appointed by the House. Under Schedule 1 to this Act the Commission is a body corporate. The primary functions of the Commission are to appoint the staff in the House Departments, to determine their numbers, and to determine their remuneration and other terms and conditions of service (section 2).
The various House Departments include the Department of Finance and Administration. This is divided into three main offices. One of these is the Fees Office. Until recently this performed the functions of receiving claim forms for allowances and expenses, which might be submitted in person or by post, considering the claims and making payments in relation to claims that appeared to be properly made.
The claim to privilege
The defendants contend that the Crown Court has no jurisdiction to try them in respect of these charges on the ground that this would infringe parliamentary privilege. This claim to privilege has two bases. The first is article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689 ("article 9"). This provides:
"That the Freedome of Speech and Debates or Proceedings in Parlyament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or Place out of Parlyament."
The defendants further rely on privilege that has its origin before 1689 and which is wider than, and embraces, article 9. This has customarily been described as the "exclusive cognisance of Parliament" but has also been described in argument as "exclusive jurisdiction". I shall use the former description.
Who decides the issue?
In the 17 th and 18 th centuries there was a dispute between the courts and the House of Commons, often acrimonious, as to who was the final arbiter of the scope of parliamentary privilege. This dispute was largely resolved in the course of the 19 th century. In Stockdale v Hansard (1839) 9 Ad & E 1 at pp 147- 148 Lord Denman CJ said of the argument that the House of Commons was a separate Court with exclusive jurisdiction over the extent of its privileges:
"Where the subject matter falls within their jurisdiction, no doubt we cannot question their judgment; but we are now enquiring whether the subject matter does fall within the jurisdiction of the House of Commons. It is contended that they can bring it within their jurisdiction by declaring it so. To this claim, as arising from their privileges, I have already stated my answer: it is perfectly clear that none of these Courts could give themselves jurisdiction by adjudging that they enjoy it."
It is now accepted in Parliament that the courts are not bound by any views expressed by parliamentary committees, by the Speaker or by the House of Commons itself as to the scope of parliamentary privilege. On 4 March 2010 the Clerk of the Parliaments wrote to the solicitor acting for Lord Hanningfield a letter that had received the approval of the Committee for Privileges. This stated:
"Article 9 limits the application of parliamentary privilege to 'proceedings in Parliament.' The decision as to what constitutes a 'proceeding in Parliament', and therefore what is or is not admissible as evidence, is ultimately a matter for the court, not the House."
This statement was correct. It applies as much to the House of Commons as to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Teng Chang Khim v Dato' Raja Ideris Raja Ahmad
-
Baron Mereworth v Ministry of Justice
...The ambit of both article 9 and the principle of exclusive cognisance were recently considered by the Supreme Court in R v Chaytor [2010] UKSC 52. In relation to exclusive cognisance, Lord Phillips, with whom the rest of the Justices of the Supreme Court agreed, said: This phrase describes ......
-
[1] Hon. Mark Brantley (Leader of the Opposition) [2] Hon. Eugene Hamilton [3] Hon. Shawn Richards [4] Hon. Vance Armory [5] Hon. Sam Condor [6] Hon. Timothy Harris Claimants/Respondents v [1] Hon. Curtis Martin (Speaker of the National Assembly) [2] Hon. Denzil Douglas (Prime Minister) [3] Hon. Dr. Asim Martin (Deputy Prime Minister) [4] Hon. Patrice Nisbett [5] Hon. Marcella Liburd [6] Hon. Glen Phillip [7] Hon. Richard Skerrit [8] Hon. Nigel Carty [9] Hon. Jason Hamilton [10] Attorney General of St. Chrisptopher and Nevis Defendants/Applicants [ECSC]
...over their own members, their right to impose discipline within their walls, is absolute and exclusive." See also R. v Chaytor (David) [2011] 1 A.C. 684 25 See also Pickins v British Railway Board [1974] AC 765 in which the court refused to investigate alleged defects of procedure in the pa......
-
Arthur William Taylor v The Attorney–General HC AK
...above n 27. 39 Simpson v Attorney-General [Baigent's Case] [1994] 3 NZLR 667 (CA). 40 Pepper v Hart [1993] AC 593 (HL) at 638. 41 R v Chaytor [2010] UKSC 52, [2011] 1 AC 684 at [47] per Lord Phillips of Worth 42 Pepper v Hart, above n 40, at 638. 43 Television New Zealand Ltd v Prebble [1......
-
Mistaking theft: Dishonesty ‘turns over a new leaf’
...Dyson and Paul Jarvis, ‘Poison Ivey or Herbal Tea Leaf’ (2018) 134 (Apr) LQR 198, 202–203.90. R v Chaytor,R v Morley and R v Devine [2011] 1 AC 684; J Rogers, ‘Dishonesty in the First LIBOR Trial’ (2016) 3 Arch Rev7, 8.91. See chapters 6, 7 and 8 of Hugh Beale, Chitty on Contracts (33rd edn......
-
A Directly-Elected House of Lords: A Proposal for Reform
...from the Commons without the lower house actively pressuring members of the Lords to vote in a particular manner. 65 See R v Chaytor [2010] UKSC 52, [2012] WLR 311 [63] (Lord Phillips). 66 Waldron, ‘Bicameralism and the Separation of Powers’ (n 22) 45-46. See also Lucinda Maer, Ministers in......