Afternoon:
9°c
Prosecutors to reveal decision on whether expenses MPs will stand trial
12 Mar 2010
The Crown Prosecution Service will announce today whether it will bring charges against another politician over the expenses scandal.
Three Labour MPs and a Conservative peer yesterday told a judge they will use a 320-year-old law to argue they should not be prosecuted.
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.
The four were charged last month. The CPS announced there was insufficient evidence to bring charges against a fifth politician, Labour peer Lord Clarke of Hampstead.
In an unprecedented hearing at City of Westminster Magistrates' Court yesterday, 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".
Reader views (6)
It's not an archaic law, it's a fundamental part of our constitution. However, it's clearly not intended to shield MPs from accusations of this kind. I very much doubt the courts will accept their argument.
- Roy, England, 12/03/2010 13:02
Report abuse
The privilige covered is that privilege of free speech. This ensured that MP's did not feel restricted to speak on any topic that might not prove popular with the monarch or authorities. It did not apply to MP's fiddling their expenses and flipping homes.
These people just do not get the anger that the electorate feel.
They, by their actions, have set democracy back centuries. Hands up those who trust a politician.
- Aylyn, Orihuela Costa,, 12/03/2010 12:33
Report abuse
Could be a good thing for the general population, I'm sure there are lots of old laws we can use to defend our homes and families.
Could be a pandoras box they open, if they get away with it.
Maybe we could use the old treason laws for certain politicians if they are still in effect.
- P Staker, London, 12/03/2010 12:29
Report abuse
They wont stand trial. This is Bent Britain where law and order does not exist thanks to gormless politicians and supercillious Judges and their cloistered view of life!
- Alan, Chigwell., 12/03/2010 11:53
Report abuse
Hiding behind archaic law, let them stand trial for stealing from the exchequer, maybe there is an old law that will be used to drag them throughthe streets to Tyburn, as the did to forgers and fraudsters. Oh I wish!!!
- John Bandey, St Pardoux, 12/03/2010 11:23
Report abuse
Absolute disgrace pleading 'Privelige'. They should accept their fate and stop damaging the Party's interests by just drawing out this miserable saga.
- Dhan Raj, Basildon, 12/03/2010 10:44
Report abuse
