The Supreme Court has ruled this morning that three former Labour MPs should face criminal trials over their expenses claims.
Elliot Morley, David Chaytor and Jim Devine, charged with theft by false accounting, had previously argued at the Court of Appeal that only Parliament could hear their case.
The three have now exhausted their challenge to an original ruling which rejected their claims to Parliamentary privilege, a 300-year-old immunity from legal proceedings arising from actions within Parliament; however the judge ruled in June that individual expense claims are “not covered by parliamentary privilege and… triable in Crown Court”.
From the BBC:
Former Bury North MP Mr Chaytor, 61, of Todmorden, West Yorkshire; former Scunthorpe MP Mr Morley, 58, of Winterton, north Lincolnshire; and former Livingston MP Devine, 57, of Bathgate, West Lothian, are all on unconditional bail and face separate trials.
All were barred by their party from standing again as Labour MPs at the general election.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Should we go to the USA for a holiday?
A question of competence
Hillcrest Bowling Club event #dundeewestend
Liberal Democrats takes the lead in Southern England
My five favourite espionage novels
Mohammed Amin
Margaret
Charley Hasted
Jennie
Caron Lindsay
10 Comments
Good, I am glad and cant wait for the trial to begin.
I hope this will also mean that the CPS will hurry up and make decisions on the other Mps expenses who they are investigating and get them through the courts.
Husband-and-wife X-Tory MPs Andrew MacKay and Julie Kirkbride, should be prosecuted in my opinion.
One of the charges against MR Chaytor is for false accounting and for falsely claiming rent on a property owned by his mother.
Therefore it is right that any other Mp’s who are guilty of the same breech of rules, False accounting, should be trialled for the same offence.
This would include.
Liberal Democrat MP, David Law, who needs to have the whipp removed and put before the courts for falsely claiming rent on properties owned by his partner, which he freely admits to doing knowing he was breaking parliamentary rules.
And any other MP’s guilty of false accounting.
We were promised new and cleaner politics, lets start seeing it please,
It is certainly good news that this ruling has been made and that MPs will be held accountable under the law on these issues.
@ Matt, I agree that we should see those MPs that broke the law brought to trial (I would point out that there is a distinction between breaches of parliamentary rules and breaking the law). I’m sure the CPS has this in mind, and will bring those MPs they suspect of breaking the law to trial.
I do find it distressing that MPs from Chaytor to Woolas think that the normal judicial process is somehow anti-democratic.
If you commit a crime, you should face normal process. No matter who you are.
@Grammar Police
“@ Matt, I agree that we should see those MPs that broke the law brought to trial (I would point out that there is a distinction between breaches of parliamentary rules and breaking the law). I’m sure the CPS has this in mind, and will bring those MPs they suspect of breaking the law to trial
I agree, but false accounting is a criminal offence, and falsely claiming expenses for rent or mortgage payments is false accounting.
We can not be seen to charge 1 former MP with falsely claiming rent and then put them before a jury, whilst then allowing other Members of Parliament past and present from escaping the same judgements.
These 3 former Labour MP’s must not be seen as token punishments for the expenses scandal and then be forgotten.
I don’t think that will acceptable to the public.
I agree with Helen.
He claimed exactly the amount he was entitled to anyway. The only thing he did wrong was to check the box for “renting” rather than “shared with partner”. Either way the amount he can claim as parliamentary expenses is the same. Minor errors in paperwork with no financial impact are not a crime!
@Andrew Suffield
“He claimed exactly the amount he was entitled to anyway”
It is against parliamentary rules to claim 2nd home allowances for accommodation that is owned by your partner. To knowing do so, is false accounting.
The same as it is against rules to claim, rent on a property that is owned by your parents.
Hence the reason one of the charges against MR Chaytor is for false accounting , for falsely claiming rent on a property owned by his mother.
So I am afraid you are wrong there.
Matt,
“It is against parliamentary rules to claim 2nd home allowances for accommodation that is owned by your partner. To knowing do so, is false accounting.”
Let’s knock this one on the head once and for all, shall we? The term “partner” within the meaning of the rules is ambiguous. Where there is an ambiguity, that ambiguity is interpreted in the defendant’s favour if the impugned actions would otherwise attract criminal liability. David Laws is as much entitled to due process as anyone else.
@Sesenco
How does the DWP which is a government department define Partner?
http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/v07-am28.pdf
You do not have to be married, civil partnership, for the DWP to classify you as a Partner.
Definition of couple
1. a man and a woman who are married to each other and are members of the
same household
2. a man and a woman who are not married to each other but are Living together as Husband and wife
3. two people of the same sex who are civil partners of each other and are
members of the same household or
4. two people of the same sex who are not civil partners of each other but are
living together as if they were civil partners,
and for the purposes of 4., two people of the same sex are to be regarded as living
together as if they were civil partners if, but only if, they would be regarded as
LTAHAW if they were instead two people of the opposite sex.
Definition of family
The definition of family is
1. a couple or
2. a single person or
3. people living in the same household who are members of a polygamous
marriage
together with any dependent children who are members of the same household and
for whom at least one of the couple or member of the polygamous marriage is
responsible.
1 reg 3(1)
Definition of partner
A partner is
1. the other member of a couple or
2. where the person is married polygamously to two or more members in the
household, any such member.
The Parliamentary rules say
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-finance-office/greenbook0907.pdf
Mortgage and rental arrangements
PAAE must not be used to meet the costs of renting a property
from yourself; a partner or family member (including a spouse
or civil partner); a close business associate; or an organisation or
company in which you or a family member