Memorandum by the Clerk of the House
ARREST OF MEMBERS AND SEARCHING OF OFFICES
IN THE PARLIAMENTARY PRECINCTS
INTRODUCTION
1. The arrest of Mr Damian Green, a Member of
the House, and the searching by police of his office within the
Parliamentary estate on 27 November 2008 have raised issues about
the application of parliamentary privilege to such matters and
the correct processes which should be followed when such events
arise. In this paper I consider the matters of arrest and search
separately although they are obviously linked.
ARREST OF
MEMBERS
2. It has always been recognised that the privilege
of freedom from arrest does not apply to criminal proceedings.[1]
The Commons recognised that limitation on privilege as early as
1429 and the principle has been reiterated on occasion ever since.[2]
In 1926 the Speaker ruled that "A Member of this House is,
with regard to the criminal law, in exactly the same position
as any other person".[3]
Privilege has never been intended or used to set Members above
the criminal law or to interfere with the progress of criminal
investigation.[4]
3. There is also nothing to prevent a Member from
being arrested on the Parliamentary estate. In 1815, for example,
Lord Cochrane was arrested while seated on the Government front
bench but before the House was sitting. On the other hand, the
arrest of a Member on the precincts during a sitting of the House
would raise questions of hindering that Member in his or her attendance
upon the House; service of court documents within the precincts
while the House is sitting has been regarded as a contempt.[5]
4. Freedom from arrest in civil proceedingssuch
as for debthas been asserted by the House from early times.
For instance, in 1340, the King released a Member from prison
during the Parliament following that in which he had been prevented,
by his detention, from taking his seat.[6]
The basis for this freedom from arrest in civil matters was that
Members of the House needed to be available to take part in its
proceedings. However, as the Joint Committee pointed out in 1999,
"The immunity lost most of its importance in 1870, when,
with a few exceptions, imprisonment for debt was abolished."[7]
5. The only distinction between Members and
others arrested in respect of criminal charges is that the House
must be informed if a Member is detained from his or her service
in Parliament. In these circumstances, it is usual for the Speaker
to notify the House of the arrest through an oral statement, although
this may be done by laying a copy of the letter on the Table.[8]
It is not strictly necessary to inform the House when the Member
is not detained for long enough to prevent attendance in the House
but it is generally desirable that the House should be informed
at the earliest opportunity.
Recent cases
6. There have been many instances of arrests
being reported to the House, including 15 between 1987 and 1991,
mainly for failure to pay fines in Northern Ireland.[9]
Earlier, in January 1970 the remand in custody of a Member on
a charge under the Official Secrets Act, was reported to the House
the same day.[10]
The letter relating to the arrest of a Member, which was sent
to the Speaker on 4 August 1978, the first day of the summer adjournment,
was laid on the Table on the House's return on 24 October.[11]
7. In 1999 the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege
examined the privilege of freedom from arrest in civil matters.[12]
The Committee accepted the view of witnesses that it had become
of very limited application. The Committee therefore recommended
that legislation be introduced to abolish it.
SEARCH OF
OFFICES IN
THE PRECINCTS:
EXCLUSIVE COGNISANCE
8. In the matter of the searching by police
of offices within the parliamentary precincts, there are two distinct
issues to be considered: first, the status and definition of precincts
and secondly, the extent to which privilege might affect the seizure
of material. The principle of privilege most relevant to the matter
of precincts is that of exclusive cognisance which gives Parliament
control over all aspects of its own affairs and, inter alia, the
power to punish anyone for behaviour interfering substantially
with the proper conduct of parliamentary business.[13]
It also confers upon the Speaker authority to act in the precincts,
for example over matters of security. The second consideration
is the extent to which searches of Members' offices within the
precincts might interfere with proceedings or impinge upon the
protection afforded by Article IX of the Bill of Rights.[14]
Precincts
9. The precincts of the House are now well understood
to comprise the parts of the Palace of Westminster and adjacent
office buildings used exclusively by the House by Members, their
staff and staff of the House. From 1547 the House has sat regularly
in the former royal palace but not until after the fire of 1834
was there a purpose-built meeting place for Parliament. When King
Charles attempted to arrest the five Members on 4 January 1642
the House's control of its precincts probably did not extend much
beyond the Chamber itself. The King, of course, interrupted proceedings
of the House. Even the new Palace of Westminster constructed between
1840 and 1852 remained a royal palace and only in 1965 was control
of most of it passed to the two Houses in the persons of their
respective presiding officers.
10. A fuller description of the precincts is set
out in the report of the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege
in 1999:
"260. The large measure of control exercised
by the two Houses over the premises where they meet has symbolic
as well as practical importance. The Palace of Westminster is
a royal palace, and used to be controlled on the Sovereign's behalf
by the Lord Great Chamberlain. Control of the use of the precincts
of the two Houses is now vested in their presiding officers on
behalf of the House. [There are exceptions. Control of Westminster
Hall and the Crypt Chapel is vested jointly in the Lord Great
Chamberlain, as representing the Sovereign, and in the Speaker
of each House on behalf of the two Houses. The Lord Great Chamberlain
also retains control of Her Majesty's Robing Room and the Royal
Gallery, both of which are in the precincts of the House of Lords].
Rules made by the two Houses determine who may enter the precincts
and the conditions on which the premises may be used. The police
on duty in the two Houses are under the direction of the Serjeants-at-Arms.
Both Serjeants have power given them by their respective Houses
to deal with misconduct by non-members.
261. The position of the two Houses in this
regard, and the powers of their presiding officers, are not set
out in any statute. Nor are `precincts' statutorily defined. The
extent of the precincts has never been a matter of dispute in
court. The two Houses assume that precincts include, and that
the courts would accept they include, in addition to the Palace
itself and its immediately surrounding areas such as Old Palace
Yard and New Palace Yard, various buildings adjacent to the Palace
occupied for parliamentary purposes. [Apart from the Palace, the
precincts include new buildings in Parliament Street, Canon's
Row, Bridge Street and Portcullis House. All these buildings are
freehold and are permanent premises built to meet the needs of
Parliament. In addition to these freehold properties, Parliament
leases properties in Millbank, Dean's Yard, and Abbey Gardens,
which, though not held permanently, are nevertheless used exclusively
for parliamentary purposes and regarded as part of the precincts.]
Two former leaders of the House of Commons, Lord Newton of Braintree
and Mr John McGregor MP, said in evidence that the absence of
a statutory definition of precincts had not caused any practical
difficulty. We see no need for any change in the present position."
11. In 2007, the parliamentary "site"
was designated for the purpose of s128 of the Serious Organised
Crime and Police Act 2005 and described as "the Palace of
Westminster and Portcullis House", although the relevant
plan of the designated site includes 1 Parliament Street and the
Norman Shaw buildings as well which is clearly correct.[15]
Recent cases
12. The only recent occasion on which the definition
of the precincts has been at issue was in 1986 in the Zircon
case.[16]
Although the facts of that case are not directly related to the
current issues, the conclusion of the Privileges Committee are
relevant.
13. On that occasion, the BBC had prepared, but decided
not to broadcast, a television film called The Secret Story.
The film included material on a secret defence project, concerned
with a means of collecting intelligence, code-named Zircon. Some
Members of the House arranged to show the film within the precincts
of the House. The Speaker, Mr Bernard Weatherill, was reluctant
to intervene. The Attorney General applied to the court, on the
ground of national security, for an order banning the showing
of the film within the precincts of the House of Commons until
the House had had an opportunity to decide whether the showing
of the film should be allowed.
14. In the exercise of his discretion, the judge
refused to grant an injunction, taking the view that the matter
should be under the control of the House of Commons authorities
even in advance of any motion in the House. There being insufficient
time before the proposed showing for the matter to be considered
by the House itself, the Speaker acting as the controller of the
precincts then made an interim banning order, to enable the House
itself to decide the matter.
15. The matter was referred to the Privileges
Committee, which supported the Speaker's action. The Committee
reported: "it might be thought ... that the fact that something
is done within the precincts of the House might afford that action
some kind of immunity or protection of privilege. This would mean
that the precincts of the House would somehow be treated as a
sanctuary from the operation of the law, irrespective of whether
the activities concerned were a proceeding in Parliament ... your
Committee can find no precedent for the House affording its Members
any privileges on the sole ground that their activities were within
the precincts. The fact that the Zircon film was to be shown in
the precincts therefore gave those responsible no privileged protection."[17]
SEARCH OF
OFFICES: PRIVILEGE,
PARLIAMENT AND
THE COURTS
16. The Zircon case reaffirms the ancient
privilege of exclusive cognisance in the control of the precincts
through the Speaker, but it also suggests that the precincts cannot
be used to create what the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege
called a "haven from the law".[18]
Not only has the House refrained from exercising privilege to
prevent any interference with criminal proceedings but for it
to do so threatens to unbalance the comity established between
the courts and Parliament over areas of each's jurisdiction.
17. In a recent note of advice to the House, the
Attorney General makes it clear that the determination of whether
material is inadmissible as evidence in a criminal trial by virtue
of Article IX is a matter for the courts.[19]
That would be the case even where the House itself resolves that
particular material or categories of material were "proceedings"
within the meaning of Article IX of the Bill of Rights. The material
would only be inadmissible if the courts themselves consider the
use to which it is put amounts to "impeaching or questioning"
of Parliamentary proceedings. She adds "it is a question
of law both whether particular material constitutes `proceedings
in Parliament' and whether the use that that material is being
put to amounts to impeaching or questioning of such proceeding."[20]
18. The wider context into which that consideration
fits is that of the relationship between Parliament and the courts.
Historically that relationship has been a complex and at times
difficult one, as is described in Chapter 11 of Erskine May.
But in modern times Parliament and the courts have reached a mutual
accommodation based on the notion that they should each avoid
crossing into the territory or preserve of the other. An example
of that comity is the House's sub judice rule which is a recognition
that debate should not cover "live" cases before the
Courts. For their part, while the courts have never accepted that
they have no locus in determining the boundaries of privilege
(because privilege is part of common law) they have accepted that
the jurisdiction of privilege within Parliament, and in particular
in relation to its proceedings, is a matter for each House itself.[21]
When proceedings of the House of Commons appear to be impeached
or questioned in the courts (contrary to Article IX of the Bill
of Rights) Mr Speaker, as guardian of the House's interest, intervenes
but it is for the Court to determine what material may be used
in any case before it.
19. Nevertheless from the House's point of view,
dealing with the matter of the applicability of privilege to seized
documents prior to any trial, remains important. A preliminary
safeguard must be the Speaker's consideration of a warrant for
search when a Member's parliamentary office is the target. The
Speaker will need to take account of the validity and precision
of the warrant and the reasons for its being applied to a Member's
office as well as the privilege implications that may arise.[22]
20. In the Damian Green case the Clerk of the
House, acting on the Speaker's behalf wrote to the Metropolitan
Police immediately after the seizure, warning them that any privileged
material in their possession would have to be returned to the
Member. With the agreement of both parties and so as not to interfere
with the criminal investigation, officers of the House made a
preliminary inspection of both the hardcopy and electronic material
to identify such of it that might be protected by parliamentary
privilege. Material so identified was returned to Mr Green by
the Metropolitan Police. The handling of the matter in this way
was specifically designed to avert any interference with the criminal
process; it is difficult to envisage how the House itself or a
committee could have intervened without affecting that process
which, in this case, also involved someone who was not a Member
of the House.[23]
21. It was made clear to all parties that the
inspection by officers of the House was a preliminary one and
did not claim to settle the matter of privilege should a prosecution
have been proceeded with. In that circumstance, as the Attorney
General has made clear, the House can seek to intervene in any
proceedings to assert its privileges. It should be noted that
such intervention, in the Speaker's name, is not unusual and has
happened on a number of occasions recently.[24]
The Attorney General makes clear in her memorandum that she would
act as amicus curiae on behalf of the House in any case,
including one that might have arisen from the arrest of Mr Green
and the search of his office, when requested to do so.[25]
Members' correspondence
22. It is important to note that Members' correspondence,
per se, is not privileged. It would only be so if the correspondence
related to parliamentary proceedingsfor example letters
from a constituent which a Member had or intended to use in debate.
In 1958 the House resolved that the letter of a Member (Mr George
Strauss) to a Minister, on a matter that he might later wish to
raise in the House, did not relate to anything before Parliament
and was not a proceeding although the Privileges Committee had
recommended the contrary.[26]
The Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege raised the subject
as a concern in its 1999 report:
"103. One important area of uncertainty
is members' correspondence. There has been long-standing concern
about correspondence and other communications undertaken on behalf
of constituents by members of the House of Commons. Members of
both Houses now engage in many different activities in discharging
their parliamentary duties. As well as speaking in debates, participating
on committees and asking parliamentary questions, they write letters
and make representations to ministers, government agencies and
a wide variety of bodies, both public and private. Constituents
of Members of the House of Commons expect their Members to take
up their concerns at local and at national level. In recent years
Members' work has been transformed by a very substantial increase
in this type of constituency correspondence. Most of these activities
are not protected by parliamentary privilege. Article 9 protects
parliamentary proceedings: activities which are recognisably part
of the formal collegiate activities of Parliament. Much of the
work of a Member of Parliament today, although part of his duties
as a Member of Parliament, does not fall within this description."[27]
The Committee went on to consider whether absolute
privilege should be extended to correspondence between members
and ministers and recommended that it should not.[28]
PROCESSES: ARREST
23. The processes to be followed where a Member
is arrested are long-standing and have often been invoked. As
set out in paragraph 5 of this memorandum, the arrest should be
notified to the Speaker who may then use his discretion whether
to make an oral statement to the House or to lay a copy of the
letter on the Table. In a case such as that of Damian Green where
the Member concerned is not prevented from attending a sitting
of the House because of his detention, there is no requirement
for the Speaker to inform the House of the arrest. On this occasion
the Speaker made an oral statement on 3 December 2008.[29]
PROCESSES: SEARCH
24. There is no record of a case where the police
have searched the offices of a Member on the estate. There have
been a small number of cases where police investigations into
the conduct of staff of the House or Members' staff have included
searches conducted with consent on the estate.
25. Where the police seek to enter the House to search
a Member's office without his or her permission, the processes
to be followed have been considered on a previous occasion. In
July 2000, the then Clerk of the House, W R McKay,[30]
issued a guidance note to the Serjeant at Arms, the Speaker's
Secretary and Speaker's Counsel on the police search of a Member's
office. The paper was prompted by the strong possibility that
the police would wish to enter and search a particular Member's
office and the awareness that there was no real precedent for
how such a request should be met. Drawing on the Canadian practice,[31]
the Clerk outlined a process under which:
The consent of the Speaker must be obtained
before there is any action in the Palace.
The Speaker should see the search warrant,
or a draft, in advance and satisfy herself, on the advice of her
Counsel, that she might consent to the search. Considerations
relevant to that decision would be: formal validity of the warrant;
precision with which it specifies the material being sought; relevance
of the material to the charge brought; and the possibility that
the material might be found elsewhere.
If the warrant preceded rather than followed
the formal making of a charge the police ought to be asked specifically
to justify that aspect of their request.
It would be important to ensure that
neither the warrant nor the exercise of the powers it conferred
ran contrary to the privileges of the House or individual Members.
If material were taken the Speaker ought
to be assured that it was that which was mentioned in or relevant
to the warrant and no other. Any police officers who undertook
any search should be personally accompanied by the Serjeant from
their arrival in the precincts to their departure and particularly
during the search.
A Member charged ought not to be warned
of an impending search warrant but the police ought to let him
have a copy at the time of the search or as soon thereafter as
practicable.
SPEAKER'S
PROTOCOL
26. The police action envisaged in the McKay
note did not materialise and so the guidance outlined in that
note was not tested on that occasion. In 2008, following the search
of Mr Green's office, the Speaker issued a protocol to all Members,
setting out the processes to be followed in future should the
police seek to search a Member's office within the precincts of
the House.[32]
This protocol adopts the principle behind the McKay note of balancing
the proper administration of justice and the right of the work
of the House and of its Members to continue unhindered. However,
the protocol makes explicit that the Speaker is to be the main
decision-maker relating to the execution of any search warrant
and that a warrant will always be required. In addition, it provides
for the Speaker to seek the advice of the Attorney General and
Solicitor General, where necessary, and it addresses the issue
of the handling by police of material which may be covered by
parliamentary privilege or, in the case of data relating to individual
constituents, which is not privileged, require "the same
degree of care as would apply in similar circumstances to removal
of information about a client from a lawyer's office."
27. On the occasion of the events leading to the
search of Mr Green's office, the guidance considered above was
not followed. Instead the search of the office was permitted by
the Serjeant at Arms on the basis of a consent form signed on
the morning of 27 November 2008. The circumstances of the arrest
of Mr Green and entry into his office were set out in the Speaker's
statement to the House on 3 December 2008. Mr Speaker made a further
statement on 9 December 2008 regarding access to the House of
Commons server.[33]
28. Since the occasion of the search of Mr Green's
office, the procedure for seeking permission to examine documents
in a Member's possession has arisen. Mr Speaker has ruled that
when the police wish to approach a Member seeking a document in
his or her possession, they must first approach the Serjeant at
Arms who will then approach the Member. If the Member does not
give permission, that is the end of the matter unless the police
seek to search the Member's office under a warrant in which case
the conditions of Mr Speaker's Protocol will apply.[34]
INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCE
29. There are examples of police searches of
Members' offices in comparable Commonwealth jurisdictions and
in the United States.
Canada
30. The position in Canada is particularly well documented
and has evolved within a context of Westminster traditions. In
1973 a parliamentary committee concluded that "It is well
established that outside police forces on official business shall
not enter the precincts of parliament without first obtaining
the permission of Mr Speaker who is custodian of the powers and
privileges of Parliament".[35]
In such cases, parliamentary privilege has to be balanced against
the demands of justice. The Canadian parliamentary handbook, The
Practice and Procedure of the House of Commons, states that
"if no charge has been laid or there is no evidence of an
investigation against a Member, the Chair may exercise its discretion
against the execution of a warrant. If there is an allegation
of an offence by a Member, and the enforcement of the charge necessitates
a warrant, the Speaker may give permission for its execution."[36]
A report from a Special Committee adopted by the House in 1990
dealt with procedures surrounding the execution of search warrants
within the parliamentary precincts and reaffirmed the principles
that should be respected. It stated that "A search warrant
must be executed in the presence of a representative of the Speaker
who ensures that a copy of it is given to any Member whose affairs
are subject of the search, at the time of the search or as soon
as practicable thereafter."[37]
Australia
31. In New South Wales a case arose in October 2003
when officers of an independent anti-corruption body executed
a search warrant in the Parliament office of a Member of the Upper
House, seizing documents and various items of computer equipment.
The House's Privileges Committee found that the seizure of at
least some of the material involved a breach of privilege conferred
by Article IX. The Committee stopped short of suggesting that
the Independent Commission against Corruption (ICAC) had committed
a contempt because ICAC "did not act with a relevant intent"
but it would do so if there was "any further attempt by ICAC
to use documents which fall within the scope of proceedings in
Parliament in their investigation".[38]
Procedures for handling seized material were developed.[39]
New Zealand
32. The New Zealand House of Representatives has
also addressed similar issues. In October 2003 a draft agreement
on policing functions within the parliamentary precincts was referred
to the House Privileges Committee, which Committee reported in
March 2004. The agreement defined the precincts of Parliament
under the control of the Speaker. It stated clearly that all policing
functions carried out within the precincts should be carried out
with full regard to parliamentary privilege. However, it dealt
only with offences committed within the precincts and the interviewing
of Members and staff and the service of legal process and not
with the search of offices.
33. More recently, on 7 November 2006, the Speaker
of the House of Representatives presented the House with a copy
of an interim agreement she had reached with the Commissioner
of Police on the execution of search warrants on premises occupied
or used by Members of Parliament. This matter had arisen because
for the first time the police had sought to execute a search warrant
against a Member. A search under the agreement had then been made
on 27 October 2006, involving material held in a Member's parliamentary
and electorate offices.
34. The agreement, based on the precedent from
New South Wales, set out a procedure to enable any claim for parliamentary
privilege in relation to physical or electronic documents on the
premises to be raised. In the case of parliamentary premises,
this procedure requires the Speaker and the Clerk to be informed
and the latter or her representative to be given the opportunity
to be present. Claims for privilege for documents are to be resolved
within five working days with disputed documents held in the Clerk's
custody in the interim. The agreement stated that nothing in it
amounted to a waiver of parliamentary privilege in respect of
material seized. The Speaker indicated to the House that the agreement
would be referred to the Privileges Committee for consideration
once the police and legal proceedings were concluded. In mid-2008
proceedings were still active, with the Member concerned committed
to trial at the High Court.
35. Cases in the United States and Australia
have concentrated on whether particular documents seized are covered
by privilege and their admissibility in court as evidence.
CONCLUSIONS: CONSIDERATIONS
FOR THE
COMMITTEE
Arrest
36. In summary it seems that so far as arrest
of a Member in relation to criminal proceedings is concerned,
there is sufficient clarity as to the procedure to be followed,
i.e. immediate notification by the police to the Speaker for him
to decide how or whether to inform the House. The guiding principle
here is whether, or to what extent, a Member would be impeded
in performing his or her duties in the House.
37. The Committee may wish to revisit the question
of whether freedom from arrest in civil matters has any meaning
in a modern context or is anomalous as suggested by the Joint
Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and its predecessor Committee
of Privileges.[40]
Search
38. So far as search of Members' offices in the precincts
is concerned, the Committee may wish to re-assert the importance
of exclusive cognisance which enables the Speaker, on behalf of
the House, to act as the controlling authority in the precincts.
39. Given proper process, including the need for
a search warrant setting out clearly the grounds for search, the
Committee may wish to re-affirm the principle that the precincts
cannot be a haven from the law and that the proper administration
of justice within the precincts should not be impeded.
40. The Committee may also wish to consider
a number of issues arising in connection with searches which include:
(a) adequate notice being given to the Speaker
of an intended search;
(b) the need for a formal search warrant;
(c) the need for the warrant to specify the material
being sought and its relevance to any charge being investigated;
(d) the need for a precise record of material
being seized and conditions the Speaker may attach to the handling
and custody of such material;
(e) the need for attendance of senior House officials
during any search;
(f) how the individual Member concerned is affected;
(g) treatment of data relating to individual
constituents;
(h) any special conditions in respect of national
security considerations;
(i) treatment of electronic material and computer
links; and
(j) the treatment of privileged material held
by any official of the House during a search of offices other
than a Member's.
Speaker's Protocol
41. The Committee may wish further to consider
if Mr Speaker's protocol set out in Appendix I provides sufficient
protection and whether new arrangements for police conduct in
seeking permission to examine documents should be included in
it.
Malcolm Jack
July 2009
1 Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, First
Report (1998-99), HL Paper 43-I, HC 214-I, para 326. Back
2
See Erskine May, 23rd edition, 2004, p 84. Back
3
HC Deb, 7 May 1926, vol 195, c 602. Back
4
Erskine May, 23rd edition, p 119. Back
5
Joint Committee, para 334. Back
6
Erskine May, 23rd edition, p 83. Back
7
Joint Committee, para 327. Back
8
See Erskine May, 23rd edition, p 120. Back
9
Parliamentary Information List, SN/PC/04594. Back
10
CJ, Vol 225, p 99. Back
11
CJ Vol 234, p 546. Back
12
Joint Committee, para 327. Back
13
Joint Committee, chapter 5. Back
14
Article IX states: "freedom of speech and debates or proceedings
in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court
or place out of Parliament" [spelling modernised]. Back
15
SI 2007, No 930. Back
16
First Report from the Committee of Privileges, HC (1986-87)
365. Back
17
Ibid. Back
18
Joint Committee, paras 242-5. Back
19
Memorandum submitted by the Attorney General, 3 April 2009, paragraph
3. See Appendix IV for the full text of the Memorandum. Back
20
Ibid. Back
21
The House or one of its Committees has on occasions tried to define
"proceedings in Parliament." The Select Committee on
the Official Secrets Acts in 1938-39 argued that disclosures by
Members in the course of debate or proceedings in Parliament [including
questions] could not be made the subject of proceedings under
the Official Secrets Acts. However, it excluded from such proceedings
soliciting or receiving such information. HC (1938-39) 101. Also
cf below, para 22 (Strauss case). Back
22
See below para 26 setting out details of what the Speaker should
consider. Back
23
On 8 December 2008 the House agreed to setting up a Committee
to inquire into the matter of the search of Mr Green's office,
but it was not to proceed to substantive business until any police
inquiry was concluded. Votes & Proceedings, 8 December
2008. Back
24
R (Federation of Tour Operators and Ors) v HM Revenue and Customs
& Ors [2007] EWHC 2062, R (Bradley & Ors) v Secretary
of State for Works & Pensions [2007] EWHC 242; Office
of Government Commerce v Information Commissioner [2008] EWHC
737, R (Wheeler) v Office of the Prime Minister & Anor
[2008] EWHC 1409. Back
25
Attorney General's memorandum, paras 5 and 6. Back
26
CJ Vol 260 1957-58. Back
27
Joint Committee, para 103. Back
28
Joint Committee, para 112. Back
29
See Appendix II. Back
30
Now Professor Sir William McKay KCB. Back
31
On Canadian experience, see paragraph 30 below. Back
32
Mr Speaker's protocol is set out in Appendix I. Back
33
Mr Speaker's statements of 3 December and 9 December 2008 are
set out in Appendix II. Back
34
Mr Speaker's statement of 22 January 2009 is set out in Appendix
III. Back
35
House of Commons of Canada, Journals, 21 September 1973, p 567,
quoted in The Practice and Procedure of the House of Commons
[of Canada], p 116. Back
36
The Practice and Procedure of the House of Commons [of
Canada], p 117. Back
37
Third Report from the Special Committee on the Review of the Parliament
of Canada Act, quoted in The Practice and Procedure of the
House of Commons [of Canada], p 118. Back
38
See Report of Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and
Ethics (Report 23-December 2003), Legislative Council of New South
Wales, paras 3.66 and 3.70, and JD Evans, Seizure of a Member's
document under search warrant, The Table, Vol 72 2004. Back
39
(Report 23-December 2003) Chapter 4. Back
40
See paragraph 7 above. Back
|