R v Chaytor
| R v Chaytor | |
|---|---|
 |
|
| Court | Supreme Court of the United Kingdom |
| Full case name | 'R v Chaytor and others |
| Argued | 18–19 October 2010 |
| Decided | 1 December 2010 |
| Neutral Citation | [2010] UKSC 52 |
| Case history | |
| Prior action(s) | [2010] EWCA Crim 1910 |
| Holding | |
| Members of Parliament could be prosecuted for false accounting in relation to the Parliamentary expenses scandal without violating Parliamentary privilege | |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Lord Phillips & Lord Rodger (Lords Hope, Brown, Mance, Collins, Kerr and Lady Hale in concurrence), Lord Clarke |
| Area of Law | |
| False accounting, Constitutional law, Parliamentary privilege | |
R v Chaytor and others [2010] UKSC 52 was a 2010 judgment of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. The case concerned the trials of three former Members of Parliament for false accounting in relation to the Parliamentary expenses scandal of 2009.
During their trials, the three MPs (David Chaytor, Elliot Morley and Jim Devine) had each separately argued unsuccessfully that there was no case to answer as expenses claims were covered by the doctrine of Parliamentary privilege and could not be the basis of criminal charges. They appealed (along with Lord Hanningfield) to the Court of Appeal where three of the most senior judges in that court (Lord Judge LCJ, Lord Neuberger MR and Sir Anthony May – the President of the Queen's Bench Division) had dismissed their arguments.
The MPs (although not Lord Hanningfield) successfully applied to the Supreme Court for permission to appeal the decision. The Supreme Court, comprising nine judges to reflect the importance of the matter, heard arguments over two days in October 2010 before unanimously rejecting the submission that Parliamentary privilege under either the common law or the Bill of Rights 1689 protected the defendants from prosecution.
As a consequence, each case was referred back to the Crown Court. Chaytor and Morley pleaded guilty to dishonesty offences and Devine was found guilty at trial. Each received sentences of between 16 and 18 months imprisonment in relation to their expenses claims.
...
Wikipedia