Re McGuinness
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1997 |
| Date | 01 January 1997 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Northern Ireland) |
- Primary legislation -Provision that members of Parliament refusing to swear oath or affirm allegiance to sovereign precluded from taking seats in Parliament -Whether provision unconstitutional - Whether provision amenable to judicial review -Parliamentary Oaths Act, 1866, s. 1.
The applicant was elected member of Parliament for the mid- Ulster constituency on 2 May, 1997. He was a member of Sinn Fein and it was party policy that Sinn Fein members elected to Parliament refused to take an oath or affirm allegiance to the sovereign. By s. 1 of the Parliamentary Oaths Act, 1866, a member of Parliament was required to swear an oath or affirm allegiance to the sovereign before taking a seat in the Houses of Parliament. Since the applicant was unwilling to do either he was not able to take his seat in Parliament. On 14 May, 1997, the Speaker of the House of Commons, made a statement to the House that, in the interest of the House and making use of the power vested in the Office of the Speaker to control accommodation and services in the Commons parts of the Palace of Westminster, the restrictions on benefits and facilities available in the House of Commons, imposed on those choosing not to take their seats would be extended so that certain services would not be open for use by such members. On 12 August, 1997, the applicant lodged an application for leave to apply for judicial review of the speaker's decision and for leave to apply for a declaration that the 1866 Act, in so far as it required him to swear or affirm allegiance to the sovereign, was incompatible with his constitutional rights as a member of Parliament, including his right to freedom of expression, and with the rights of his constituents and was therefore unconstitutional and unlawful. The respondent resisted the application for leave to apply for judicial review on the ground that the court did not have jurisdiction to entertain the challenge either to the speaker's order or to the validity of the 1866 Act. Held - (1) Article 9 of the Bill of Rights, 1689, provided, inter alia, that proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament. It was well established that the courts had contemplated a wider scope for parliamentary privilege than that which attached to the phrase 'proceedings in Parliament'. However, the phrase 'proceedings in Parliament' itself was considered to go beyond that which was transacted in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Chaytor and Others
...of the Joint Committee underlines, the protection of article 9 is not confined to freedom of speech. It is well exemplified in re McGuinness's Application [1997] NI 359. Kerr J (as he then was) considered an application by an elected member of Parliament for leave to apply for judicial rev......
-
R v Chaytor and Others
...to reach its own decision in relation to the conduct of its affairs. Two examples will illustrate this. In Re McGuinness's Application [1997] NI 359 the applicant sought to challenge by judicial review the decision of the Speaker that those who had not complied with the requirements of the......
-
Canada (Bureau de régie interne) c. Boulerice,
...parte Mohamed Al Fayed, [1997] EWCA Civ. 2488 (BAILII), [1998] 1 W.L.R. 669; Re McGuinness’s Application, [1997] NIQB 2 (BAILII), [1997] NI 359; Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235; Morin v. Crawford (1999), 14 Admin. L.R. (3d) 287, 1999 N.W.T.J. No. 5 (QL) (N.W.T.......
-
Canada (Board of Internal Economy) v. Boulerice, 2019 FCA 33
...on Vaid, R. v. Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards ex p. Al-Fayed, [1998] 1 W.L.R. 669, pages 7-8 and Re McGuinness’s Application, [1997] NI 359, pages 7-9, the appellants submit that what constitutes a proceeding in Parliament is “determined by the nature of the decision and function ......