It is very unusual for a judgment to be delivered jointly by the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls and the President of the Queen’s Bench Division – the three most senior judges who only sit together for what are perceived to be cases of exceptional public importance.

The judgment is an interesting essay on the history of Parliamentary privilege dating back to 1629. “The privileges of Parliament are the privileges of the nation, and the bedrock of our constitutional democracy.”

Even though this case sounds quite clear cut, the judges would hunted down a technicality here, or a misplaced coma there to ensure that this piece of case law didn’t end up putting MPs above the law.

It is difficult to envisage circumstances in which the performance of the core responsibilities of a MP might require or permit him or her to commit crime.

I can think of one. According to section 1 of the Terrorism Act, any act designed to influence the government for a political cause, and which disrupts an electronic system, is terrorism and is proscribed.

The Digital Economy Act was designed to influence the government for a political cause, and to disrupt an electronic system (file sharing via the internet). Surely that qualifies.

An example of how some sloppy lawmaking results in overly broad laws that criminalise unexpected things; decades of this kind of carelessness have ended up criminalising large numbers of everyday activities – so it’s not too far fetched to think that an MP might be required to break the law in order to get their job done. Most people do.