Dear All
It should come as no surprise that the three Labour MPs and a Conservative peer have pleaded not guilty to fiddling their Parliamentary expenses.
They continue to argue as a point they should not face justice in court of law.
They come to this conclusion based on the right of parliamentary privilege which they argue protects them from prosecution.
If we accept that parliamentary privilege was written in good faith, it is nonsense to suggest that when written those who did so meant the privilege should be used to cover up criminality by members of the House of Commons or House of Lords.
That point is simply not tenable.
Elliot Morley, David Chaytor, Jim Devine say they should be judged by the House of Commons authorities rather than trial by jury.
The authorities at the House of Commons cannot impose prison sentences or indeed fill any of the functions of a crime court.
It is also ridiculous to claim by Julian Knowles at the City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court it would also be unfair for the men to face a criminal trial when other MPs accused of fiddling their expenses had been dealt with by the parliamentary authorities.
There is a difference between over claiming, error and outright fraud; it is a bogus argument rather like Morley’s phantom mortgage.
In trying to manoeuvre the court, the MPs barrister requested that the MPs should be spared the humiliation of standing in the dock.
The Judge rightly threw that idea out on its arse, requested denied.
Knowles told District Judge Timothy Workman;
“They also maintain that to prosecute them in the criminal courts for their parliamentary activities would infringe the principle of the separation of powers, which is one of the principles which underpins the UK’s constitutional structure. The principle of the subject matter of these proceedings is also covered by the Parliamentary privilege conferred upon [the MPs] by Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689.”
So Knowles isn’t arguing they are innocent at present, just that they can’t be touched.
Lord Hanningfield also entered a not guilty plea in the court; his barrister is taking the same discredited line of challenging the jurisdiction of the court.
That legal point will fall.
If the ‘Westminster four’ is found guilty they could face prison terms of up to seven years.
Keir Starmer for the Director of Public Prosecutions took the decision to charge the four men under the Theft Act 1968.
I would suspect he would argue that the bill of rights of 1689 was written by men of good faith to act in good faith, therefore crime is not covered and therefore is not a ‘right’ either stated or implied.
So, it would appear that the ‘Westminster Four’ hopes rest on a legal trick to escape justice, if they can’t get the court to buy into it and this goes before a jury of their peers; I suspect they are getting found guilty.
And this is all self-inflicted.
Yours sincerely
George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University
It should come as no surprise that the three Labour MPs and a Conservative peer have pleaded not guilty to fiddling their Parliamentary expenses.
They continue to argue as a point they should not face justice in court of law.
They come to this conclusion based on the right of parliamentary privilege which they argue protects them from prosecution.
If we accept that parliamentary privilege was written in good faith, it is nonsense to suggest that when written those who did so meant the privilege should be used to cover up criminality by members of the House of Commons or House of Lords.
That point is simply not tenable.
Elliot Morley, David Chaytor, Jim Devine say they should be judged by the House of Commons authorities rather than trial by jury.
The authorities at the House of Commons cannot impose prison sentences or indeed fill any of the functions of a crime court.
It is also ridiculous to claim by Julian Knowles at the City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court it would also be unfair for the men to face a criminal trial when other MPs accused of fiddling their expenses had been dealt with by the parliamentary authorities.
There is a difference between over claiming, error and outright fraud; it is a bogus argument rather like Morley’s phantom mortgage.
In trying to manoeuvre the court, the MPs barrister requested that the MPs should be spared the humiliation of standing in the dock.
The Judge rightly threw that idea out on its arse, requested denied.
Knowles told District Judge Timothy Workman;
“They also maintain that to prosecute them in the criminal courts for their parliamentary activities would infringe the principle of the separation of powers, which is one of the principles which underpins the UK’s constitutional structure. The principle of the subject matter of these proceedings is also covered by the Parliamentary privilege conferred upon [the MPs] by Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689.”
So Knowles isn’t arguing they are innocent at present, just that they can’t be touched.
Lord Hanningfield also entered a not guilty plea in the court; his barrister is taking the same discredited line of challenging the jurisdiction of the court.
That legal point will fall.
If the ‘Westminster four’ is found guilty they could face prison terms of up to seven years.
Keir Starmer for the Director of Public Prosecutions took the decision to charge the four men under the Theft Act 1968.
I would suspect he would argue that the bill of rights of 1689 was written by men of good faith to act in good faith, therefore crime is not covered and therefore is not a ‘right’ either stated or implied.
So, it would appear that the ‘Westminster Four’ hopes rest on a legal trick to escape justice, if they can’t get the court to buy into it and this goes before a jury of their peers; I suspect they are getting found guilty.
And this is all self-inflicted.
Yours sincerely
George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University
No comments:
Post a Comment