Political Commentary: Too much privilege and not enough judicial courage

IN THE past few weeks two Members of Parliament and one public relations consultant have had libel actions against newspapers stopped in the High Court. Mr Rupert Allason, the Conservative MP for Torbay, was trying to sue Mr Joe Haines, the political journalist, and Mr Richard Stott, the editor of Today. That was the first action to be stayed. In the second, Mr Neil Hamilton, the former minister who sits for Tatton, and Mr Ian Greer, who has his own public relations firm, had the Guardian in their sights until they were told to drop the gun.

In Mr Allason's case the judge was Mr Justice Owen; in Mr Hamilton's and Mr Greer's case, Mr Justice May. Both judges gave an identical reason for preventing the actions from going any further. This was that the newspapers and journalists concerned would not be able to defend themselves properly. They would be unable to do this, the judges said, because of parliamentary privilege. This, according to them, prevented the defendants from referring to debates or proceedings in Parliament. As they could not do so, justice required the plaintiffs' actions to be stopped.

Though Tory MPs are not these days the most popular figures in our national life, journalists rank still lower, lower even than estate agents. The benefits of a free press are not - alas! - widely appreciated in this land. Certainly, if there is any rough stuff flying around in the Royal Courts of Justice, the gentlemen of the press are usually to be found on the receiving end.

And yet here we have two libel actions being stopped because there is a risk of injustice to the newspapers concerned. It is as if the Devon and Somerset Staghounds were to take out a collective subscription to the RSPCA, though such is the oddness of the English that they may have one already. Anyway, these curious legal events clearly deserve further investigation.

The judges rely on article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689, which is still the nearest we have to a written constitution. Indeed, when Lady Thatcher was once asked her opinion about a Bill of Rights, she replied: "Oh, but we have one already." The article in question goes: "That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not be impeached or questioned in any court or place outside of Parliament."

Perhaps the most important consequence of this provision is that MPs can say exactly what they like on the floor of the House and cannot be sued: they have absolute privilege. The court will simply strike out any claim made because of what is said in the House. In addition, the would- be plaintiff may find himself or herself in trouble with MPs for having had the audacity to try to take action in the first place.

My own view is that it is a good thing that there should be somewhere in these islands, outside the pages of Private Eye, where people can say precisely what they like. The trouble is that there are several members who employ the privilege not to expose wrongdoing but to secure publicity for themselves. Madam Speaker Boothroyd is perhaps not as vigilant as she might be in silencing such characters before they have managed to cause unjustified injury to innocent outsiders. But in this respect she is no more lax than her predecessors were.

Parliamentary privilege has come up before in libel cases - usually to the advantage of the member concerned. For instance, in 1972 Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith was sued for libel by the Church of Scientology of California. He had said something on television that annoyed them. In their action they were not allowed to use Sir Geoffrey's comments in the House in an attempt to show that he was actuated by malice (which, in libel cases, is a technical word).

The judges in the recent encounters did not, as far as I can see, refer to the Johnson Smith case. They relied instead on a New Zealand case which came before the Privy Council in 1994. A television company was accused of libelling a former minister. The defence involved investigation of what had happened in the New Zealand parliament. The action was halted. Delivering the opinion of the council, Lord Browne-Wilkinson said that the courts and parliament were both "astute to recognise their respective constitutional roles". The courts would "not allow any challenge to what is said or done within the walls of Parliament in performance of its legislative functions and protection of its established privileges".

In reality the courts have been not so much astute in their relations with Parliament as scared out of their wits. With government and ministers they are bolder, as they have demonstrated over the past 30 years or so with the development of the doctrine of judicial review. Nevertheless, there have been two recent changes in relations between Parliament and courts. First, leave of the House used to be required for evidence to be given in court of anything that occurred in the course of parliamentary proceedings: in 1980 the rule was quietly dropped. Second, the courts used to refuse to consider Hansard in order to construe ambiguous statutes: in 1993 that rule too was overturned.

It is difficult to see why, in principle, Mr Haines, Mr Stott and the Guardian - not to mention the New Zealand television company and the Californian Scientologists - should be treated any differently. It is not as if they are seeking to prove than an Act was incorrectly amended because the Clerk of the House was asleep, or that a division was wrongly recorded because the tellers were drunk. They are trying to do little more than make use of matters which are already of public record.

Paradoxically, the injustice is being done not to them but to Mr Allason, Mr Hamilton and Mr Greer. It is they, after all, who are being excluded from he courts. I am not, I may say, specially well disposed either towards litigious MPs or towards the law of libel. But, so long as we have both, justice should prevail. In Mr Hamilton's case, Mr Justice Owen said that, as a Member of Parliament, he was able to enjoy the benefits of parliamentary privilege. But "as a member he must take the ill consequences as well as the good". While conveniently forgetting Mr Greer, the learned judge was here showing a surely somewhat unjudicial glee in the reversal of the normal terms of parliamentary-legal trade.

The truth is that the defensible and, as some would argue, essential right of free speech for MPs has been unnecessarily extended to cover any outside investigation of Parliament. By a parallel perversion of logic, parliamentary privilege is being urged as a reason for not implementing the Nolan Report. The worst solution would be for the Committee of Privileges to take a hand, as Mr Hamilton wants. It is a smug body which operates a kind of lynch law of its own. It is quite unqualified to try defamation cases or, indeed, cases of any kind. The best solution would be for the courts now to show some of the courage over parliamentary privilege which they have already shown over judicial review.

Have you tried new the Independent Digital Edition apps?
Life and Style
ebookNow available in paperback
ebooks
ebookA delicious collection of 50 meaty main courses
Latest stories from i100
Have you tried new the Independent Digital Edition apps?
Independent Dating
and  

By clicking 'Search' you
are agreeing to our
Terms of Use.

SPONSORED FEATURES

ES Rentals

    iJobs Job Widget
    iJobs General

    Recruitment Genius: Personal Tax Senior

    £28000 - £37000 per annum: Recruitment Genius: This is an opportunity to join ...

    Recruitment Genius: Customer and Markets Development Executive

    £22000 - £29000 per annum: Recruitment Genius: This company's mission is to ma...

    Recruitment Genius: Guest Services Assistant

    £13832 per annum: Recruitment Genius: This 5 star leisure destination on the w...

    Recruitment Genius: Sales Account Manager

    £20000 - £32000 per annum: Recruitment Genius: A Sales Account Manager is requ...

    Day In a Page

    Orthorexia nervosa: How becoming obsessed with healthy eating can lead to malnutrition

    Orthorexia nervosa

    How becoming obsessed with healthy eating can lead to malnutrition
    Lady Chatterley is not obscene, says TV director

    Lady Chatterley’s Lover

    Director Jed Mercurio on why DH Lawrence's novel 'is not an obscene story'
    Farmers in tropical forests are training ants to kill off bigger pests

    Set a pest to catch a pest

    Farmers in tropical forests are training ants to kill off bigger pests
    Mexico: A culture that celebrates darkness as an essential part of life

    The dark side of Mexico

    A culture that celebrates darkness as an essential part of life
    Being sexually assaulted was not your fault, Chrissie Hynde. Don't tell other victims it was theirs

    Being sexually assaulted was not your fault, Chrissie Hynde

    Please don't tell other victims it was theirs
    A nap a day could save your life - and here's why

    A nap a day could save your life

    A midday nap is 'associated with reduced blood pressure'
    If men are so obsessed by sex, why do they clam up when confronted with the grisly realities?

    If men are so obsessed by sex...

    ...why do they clam up when confronted with the grisly realities?
    The comedy titans of Avalon on their attempt to save BBC3

    Jon Thoday and Richard Allen-Turner

    The comedy titans of Avalon on their attempt to save BBC3
    The bathing machine is back... but with a difference

    Rolling in the deep

    The bathing machine is back but with a difference
    Part-privatised tests, new age limits, driverless cars: Tories plot motoring revolution

    Conservatives plot a motoring revolution

    Draft report reveals biggest reform to regulations since driving test introduced in 1935
    The Silk Roads that trace civilisation: Long before the West rose to power, Asian pathways were connecting peoples and places

    The Silk Roads that trace civilisation

    Long before the West rose to power, Asian pathways were connecting peoples and places
    House of Lords: Outcry as donors, fixers and MPs caught up in expenses scandal are ennobled

    The honours that shame Britain

    Outcry as donors, fixers and MPs caught up in expenses scandal are ennobled
    When it comes to street harassment, we need to talk about race

    'When it comes to street harassment, we need to talk about race'

    Why are black men living the stereotypes and why are we letting them get away with it?
    International Tap Festival: Forget Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers - this dancing is improvised, spontaneous and rhythmic

    International Tap Festival comes to the UK

    Forget Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers - this dancing is improvised, spontaneous and rhythmic
    War with Isis: Is Turkey's buffer zone in Syria a matter of self-defence – or just anti-Kurd?

    Turkey's buffer zone in Syria: self-defence – or just anti-Kurd?

    Ankara accused of exacerbating racial division by allowing Turkmen minority to cross the border