Victims of gagging clauses to get a voice as Parliament launches inquiry in wake of Sir Philip Green scandal – Daily Telegraph

‘Victims forced to sign gagging clauses could be given a voice as Parliament today launches a new inquiry into the use of non-disclosure agreements following the scandal surrounding Sir Philip Green.’

Full Story

Daily Telegraph, 13th November 2018

Source: www.telegraph.co.uk

Robert Craig: The Peter Hain Case: The Effect of Article IX – UK Constitutional Law Association

‘Peter Hain’s decision to breach an interim injunction granted by the Court of Appeal in the case of ABC v Telegraph Media Group has caused serious concern. It is one of the cardinal rules in Parliament that members should not interfere in ongoing legal proceedings and Hain did not wait until the end of the proceedings before breaching this injunction, even though the case had been scheduled for an early full hearing. He does not appear even to have read the court judgment he saw fit to overrule, effectively.’

Full Story

UK Constitutional Law Association, 31st October 2018

Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org

Philip Green and non-disclosure agreements: do we have a right to know? – UK Human Rights Blog

‘The circumstances in which a court should prevent the press from reporting information about famous people has long provoked debate. The decision of the Court of Appeal in ABC & Ors v Telegraph Media Group Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 2329 is no exception, attracting extensive press coverage and comment from the #MeToo movement.’

Full Story

UK Human Rights Blog, 30th October 2018

Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com

Why the judges got it wrong in granting Philip Green an injunction – The Guardian

‘The court of appeal failed to see the case from the point of view of victims of sexual harassment.’

Full Story

The Guardian, 27th October 2018

Source: www.theguardian.com

Labour peer Peter Hain defends decision to expose Philip Green as businessman accused of sexual harassment – The Independent

‘Peter Hain has defended his decision to use parliamentary privilege to name Sir Philip Green as the businessman at the centre of a row over allegations of sexual harassment and racial abuse.’

Full Story

The Independent, 26th October 2018

Source: www.independent.co.uk

MPs who use parliamentary privilege to break court orders undermine the judiciary, says Lord Chief Justice – Daily Telegraph

Posted September 11th, 2018 in injunctions, judges, judiciary, news, parliament, parliamentary privilege by tracey

‘MPs who “abuse” parliamentary privilege to break injunctions are eroding confidence in the justice system, the Lord Chief Justice has said. Lord Burnett of Maldon, the head of the judiciary, warned that the phenomenon was part of the “gentle erosion of support” for the courts.’

Full Story

Daily Telegraph, 10th September 2018

Source: www.telegraph.co.uk

Hanningfield acquitted of expenses fraud after parliament intervenes with court – The Guardian

‘Former Tory peer accused of submitting false expenses has been formally acquitted after parliament made an unexpected intervention in the case. Lord Hanningfield, who served a jail sentence for expenses fraud in 2011, was accused in Southwark crown court of claiming around £3,300 in House of Lords allowances in July 2013 to which he was not entitled.’

Full story

The Guardian, 18th July 2016

Source: www.guardian.co.uk

‘Should Vote Leave be prosecuted over its referendum propaganda?’ – Church Court Chambers

‘On 23 June 2016 over 33 million people voted in the EU referendum. Since that date there has been widespread anger from those who believe that the organisation ‘Vote Leave’ misled members of the public. Vote Leave is said to have done so by promoting two claims. First, that the UK sends £350 million to the European Union every week and this money would be spent on the National Health Service if the UK voted to leave the European Union. Second, that remaining in the European Union would lead to unrestricted immigration.’

Full story

Church Court Chambers, 7th July 2016

Source: www.churchcourtchambers.co.uk

Mike Ashley: Could Sports Direct boss be jailed in Big Ben? – BBC News

‘Sports Direct boss Mike Ashley has been warned he could be in contempt of Parliament if he continues to refuse to appear in front of a committee of MPs. It sounds serious – but what could actually happen to him?’

Full story

BBC News, 16th March 2016

Source: www.bbc.co.uk

Tom Watson to issue written apology to Leon Brittan’s widow – The Guardian

Posted November 20th, 2015 in news, parliamentary privilege, select committees, sexual offences by tracey

‘Tom Watson has said he will write to the widow of Leon Brittan to apologise directly after he was criticised by MPs for repeating a claim that he was “as close to evil as any human could get” in connection with sex abuse allegations against the Conservative peer.’

Full story

The Guardian, 20th November 2015

Source: www.guardian.co.uk

Alexander Horne: Evidence under oath, perjury and parliamentary privilege – UK Constitutional Law Association

‘The issue of select committee powers has received renewed interest during the 2010-15 Parliament, culminating in a report from Liaison Committee on Select committee effectiveness, resources and powers (in October 2012); and, subsequently, a report by the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege in July 2013 (and a Government response later that year).’

Full story

UK Constitutional Law Association, 29th January 2015

Source: www.ukconstitutionallaw.org

European court rejects Geoff Hoon’s human rights complaint – BBC News

Posted December 5th, 2014 in human rights, lobbying, news, parliamentary privilege by sally

‘A parliamentary investigation into the conduct of the former Labour MP Geoff Hoon was justified, according to the European Court of Human Rights.’

Full story

BBC News, 4th December 2014

Source: www.bbc.co.uk

Phone hacking trial: a lesson for future high profile cases – Halsbury’s Law Exchange

Posted June 27th, 2014 in interception, news, parliamentary privilege, sub judice by tracey

‘David Cameron has been rebuked by Mr Justice Saunders for comments made about Andy Coulson whilst the jury in the “phone hacking” case were still in deliberation over two remaining charges. Cameron apologised to the House of Commons in “full and frank” terms for hiring Coulson in 2007, who he said had given false assurances about his involvement in phone hacking.’

Full story

Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 26th June 2014

Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk

Alexander Horne and Oonagh Gay: Ending the Hamilton Affair? – UK Constitutional Law Association

‘Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689 has been the subject of a variety of legal challenges. The Article, which provides (in modern parlance) that: “the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament” is usually considered to be a fundamental feature of the constitution and a cornerstone of parliamentary privilege.’

Full story

UK Constitutional Law Association, 21st May 2014

Source: www.ukconstitutionallaw.org

The Not Entirely Secret Diary of Mr Lansley – Panopticon

‘What considerations are relevant when deciding whether a Ministerial diary should be disclosed under FOIA? The decision of the First-tier Tribunal in Department of Health v Information Commissioner EA/2013/0087 is, perhaps surprisingly, the first Tribunal decision to address this issue. The judgment engages with a number of difficult issues: the Tribunal’s approach to Government evidence, the value of cross-examination in Tribunal hearings, aggregation of public interests under FOIA, and Parliamentary privilege. Hence it is of general importance, going beyond the intrinsic interest of its specific subject matter.’

Full story

Panopticon, 18th March 2014

Source: www.panopticonblog.com

Makudi v Baron Triesman of Tottenham – WLR Daily

Posted February 28th, 2014 in defamation, law reports, parliamentary privilege, privilege, public interest by sally

Makudi v Baron Triesman of Tottenham [2014] EWCA Civ 179; [2014] WLR (D) 98

‘Where a claim in defamation was brought against the defendant for repeating at an extra-parliamentary inquiry his evidence before a parliamentary committee, he was immune from the claim, by virtue of article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689, because of the public interest in the evidence and the close nexus between the evidence on the two occasions.’

WLR Daily, 26th February 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Paying the price for speaking freely about FIFA – the Triesman libel proceedings – Sports Law Bulletin from Blackstone Chambers

‘The Court of Appeal will soon be delivering judgment in a high-profile clash between the head of Thailand’s football federation, Dato Worawi Makudi, and Lord Triesman, the former chairman of the FA, which raises an issue of high constitutional importance.’

Full story

Sports Law Bulletin from Blackstone Chambers, 9th December 2013

Source: www.sportslawbulletin.org

Should parliament give itself more powers? – The Guardian

“Should parliament give itself more powers? That’s the intriguing question posed by a paper to be published next week by the Constitution Society, an educational charity established five years ago.”

Full story

The Guardian, 2nd May 2013

Source: www.guardian.co.uk

Hearing Denis MacShane’s expenses letters in court ‘would breach his rights’ – Daily Telegraph

Posted November 7th, 2012 in expenses, fraud, human rights, news, parliamentary privilege, professional conduct by sally

“Denis MacShane’s letters admitting expenses abuses cannot be used against him in court because it would breach his rights as an MP, parliament’s standards watchdog has said.”

Full story

Daily Telegraph, 6th November 2012

Source: www.telegraph.co.uk

Parliament and the judiciary – Speech by the Attorney General Dominic Grieve QC MP

Posted October 29th, 2012 in human rights, judiciary, parliament, parliamentary privilege, speeches by sally

Parliament and the judiciary

Speech by the Attorney General Dominic Grieve QC MP

BPP Law School, 25th October 2012

Source: www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk