MPs and peer to fight expenses prosecution with 1689 law
Thursday 11 March 2010
Latest in UK Politics
On Facebook
From the blogs
More than half of Afghanistan’s families live in extreme poverty
Leila is watching her baby intently, as his mouth moves trying to swallow the small blob of yellow p...
Time for a new approach to alcohol
Ambulances were called and three drunk teenagers were brought to my care. One was so drunk we had to...
Bahrain: One year on
I am used to endless lies and criticism from the BNP and its favourite blogster, as well as Islamist...
Paul Volcker stands tall against the banking lobby
Why is Europe, which likes to present itself as an opponent of speculative "Anglo-Saxon" finance, li...
Three Labour MPs and a Conservative peer told a judge today they will use a 320-year-old law to argue they should not be prosecuted over the expenses scandal.
MPs David Chaytor, Elliot Morley and Jim Devine, along with Lord Hanningfield, will insist their case should not be tried by a jury and instead dealt with by House of Commons authorities.
In an unprecedented hearing at City of Westminster Magistrates' Court, all four Parliamentarians said they would plead not guilty to fiddling claims for allowances.
The MPs asked to be excused from standing in the secure glass dock at the back of the court - but their request was refused.
District Judge Timothy Workman agreed the case was so serious it should be heard at a higher court and released the four defendants on unconditional bail to appear at Southwark Crown Court on March 30.
If convicted, they face a maximum sentence of seven years in prison.
Barrister Julian Knowles, for the MPs, told the court they would argue they were protected by parliamentary privilege, covered in the 1689 Bill of Rights.
"My clients should not be understood as saying that they are above the law - that would be quite wrong," he said.
"Parliamentary privilege is part of the law - and it is for Parliament to apply the law in their cases."
He said the case was of "high constitutional importance" but added the criminal courts had "no jurisdiction" over them.
"Proceedings in Parliament cannot be impeached or questioned in any court or place outside Parliament," he said.
Addressing a court packed with journalists and members of the public, he stressed the men denied any wrong-doing.
"They unequivocally and steadfastly maintain their innocence," he said.
In a separate hearing immediately after the MPs', the court was told Hanningfield would also argue he was covered by Parliamentary privilege.
His lawyer Rupert Bowers said he would deny charges of wrongly claiming for "repayment of travelling and other expenses".
The three MPs and peer left court without commenting where they were mobbed by the media and a handful of protesters chanting "give us our money back", "pigs" and "oink, oink".
In a statement, Hanningfield said he was "devastated" at the proceedings.
His spokesman Mark Spragg said: "He is devastated to be in this position. He feels he has been singled out. He does not believe he has done anything dishonest."
Bury North MP Chaytor, 60, of Todmorden, Lancashire, is accused of falsely claiming rent on a London flat he owned, falsely filing invoices for IT work and renting a property from his mother, against regulations.
Scunthorpe MP Morley, 57, of Winterton, North Lincolnshire, allegedly falsely claimed £30,428 in interest payments between 2004 and 2007 towards a mortgage on his home he had already paid off.
Livingston MP Devine, 56, of Bathgate, West Lothian, is said to have wrongly submitted two invoices worth a total of £5,505 for services provided by Armstrong Printing Limited.
He also faces a second charge alleging he dishonestly claimed cleaning and maintenance costs of £3,240 by submitting false invoices from Tom O'Donnell Hygiene and Cleaning Services.
Hanningfield, also known as Paul White, 69, of West Hanningfield, near Chelmsford, Essex, faced six charges of making dishonest claims for travelling allowances.
Each charge claimed the former leader of Essex County Council "purported to show that you were entitled to be paid expenses when the conditions entitling you to payment of such expenses had not been fulfilled".
- 1 Apple admits it has a human rights problem
- 2 Caught in his own blast: an Iranian targeting Israel
- 3 No secularism please, we're British
- 4 Reinstate Knox's murder charge, Italian court told
- 5 Police confiscate passport from Brooks' assistant
- 6 Lightning kills an entire football team
- 7 'Drunk tanks' and minimum prices to help Britain sober up
- 1 How Koscielny became prince of the Emirates
- 2 Apple admits it has a human rights problem
- 3 Spotify: 1 million plays, £108 return
- 4 Six Grammys, five years off: Adele puts love before career
- 5 Lightning kills an entire football team
- 6 Police confiscate passport from Brooks' assistant
- 7 Nauru and Abkhazia: One is a destitute microstate marooned in the South Pacific, the other is a disputed former Soviet Republic 13,000km away, so why are they so keen to be friends?
- 8 I was born to be a killer. Every night I see the Devil in my dreams
- 9 Mark Steel: If religion is 'marginal', I'm the Pope
- 10 Rothschild loses libel case, and reveals secret world of money and politics
Free trial of new Independent iPad app
Get your daily dose of the best of British journalism, sponsored by American Airlines
Win a three-week coastal jaunt
Spend three weeks exploring every nook and cranny of gorgeous Atlantic Canada.
Amazing restaurant offers
Three glasses of free champagne and a special menu at 46 top London restaurants.
Latest Independent competitions
Win anything from gadgets to five-star holidays on our competitions and offers page.
Commercial thought leaders
Watch the best in the business world give their insights into the world of business.
Career Services
Day In a Page
No secularism please, we're British
Working as a jail torturer ruined my life
New Arsenal face an old question of credibility in San Siro




Comments