R v Chaytor [2010] UKSC 52

Court: UK Supreme Court

Facts: In the wake of the 2009 Parliamentary expenses scandal, three former MPs—David Chaytor, Elliot Morley, and Jim Devine—were accused of making fraudulent claims for parliamentary expenses. These included claims for mortgage interest, rent, and other expenses to which they were not entitled. The defendants argued that their claims were covered by parliamentary privilege, which they believed shielded them from criminal charges related to their expense claims.

Issue: Whether parliamentary privilege protected the defendants from criminal prosecution for fraudulent expense claims.

Held: The UK Supreme Court unanimously rejected the argument that parliamentary privilege shielded the defendants from criminal prosecution. The Court held that parliamentary privilege did not extend to actions that were criminal offences under the law. Fraudulent expense claims were not considered integral to the proper functioning of Parliament and were, therefore, subject to regular criminal jurisdiction.

Key Judicial Statement: The Supreme Court emphasized that parliamentary privilege does not protect MPs from criminal prosecution for actions that are criminal offenses, even if they relate to parliamentary functions. The Court stated that the doctrine of parliamentary privilege is not a shield for criminal behavior.

💡Leveluplaw: The Chaytor case underscored the boundaries of parliamentary privilege, clarifying that it does not provide immunity from criminal prosecution for fraudulent activities. It highlighted the need for accountability and transparency in public office, reaffirming that criminal acts are subject to judicial scrutiny regardless of their connection to parliamentary duties.