Afternoon:
9°c
Expenses MPs try to use 320-year-old law to escape trial
Paul Cheston, Courts Correspondent11 Mar 2010
Three MPs and a peer accused of fiddling their expenses today sought to use a 320-year-old law as they claimed that the courts have no right to prosecute them.
The group said they were protected from criminal charges by parliamentary privilege and the three MPs even argued against appearing in the dock.
The group — Elliot Morley of Scunthorpe, David Chaytor of Bury North, Livingston's Jim Devine and Lord Hanningfield — all appeared at City of Westminster magistrates' court, barely a minute's walk from the Commons. All pleaded not guilty to charges of false accounting.
The case was committed to Southwark crown court on 30 March where they will argue in front of a trial judge that the charges are “unconstitutional”.
Julian Knowles, the barrister representing the MPs, said: “They maintain that to prosecute them in a criminal court would infringe the principle of the separation of powers which underpins the UK's constitutional structure.
“Whatever matter arises concerning the workings of Parliament should be dealt with by Parliament and not elsewhere and should be dealt with in a manner that is consistent with the way other members are being treated. The principle of the subject matter of these prosecutions is covered by the parliamentary privilege conferred upon them by Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689.
“This provides that proceedings in Parliament cannot be impeached or questioned in any court or place outside Parliament.
“These principles mean that it is for the House of Commons alone to decide whether the conduct [of the three MPs] has been such as to call for sanction.”
But Mr Knowles stressed: “My clients should not be understood as saying that they are above the law — that would be quite wrong — parliamentary privilege is part of the law and it is for Parliament to apply the law in their cases.”
The MPs were led into the dock like every other defendant. After officially confirming their names and dates of birth they answered “not guilty” as each of the charges were read to them. Morley is alleged to have dishonestly claimed a total of £30,428 more than he is entitled to in second home expenses on a house in Winterton, near Scunthorpe, between 2004 and 2007 — including 18 months after the mortgage on the property was paid off.
Chaytor faces charges that he claimed almost £13,000 in rent in 2005 and 2006 on a London flat which he owned, as well as £5,425 in 2007 and 2008 to rent a property in Lancashire owned by his mother. He is also alleged to have used false invoices to claim £1,950 for IT services in 2006.
Devine is alleged to have claimed £3,240 for cleaning services and £5,505 for stationery using false invoices in 2008 and 2009.
The Tory peer Lord Hanningfield appeared at the same court later. He also claimed he should be immune from prosecution under privilege. He faces six charges of false accounting relating to claims for overnight allowances from the Lords between 2006-09, when records allegedly show he was driven to his home near Chelmsford.
