*/
The prospect of the courts “calling into question” proceedings of Parliament despite Article IX of the Bill of Rights receded when the government’s hastily drafted Parliamentary Standards Bill received an early mauling.
Two clauses fell by the wayside. One would have required a Code of Conduct to incorporate “the Nolan principles”; whether it did could easily have become judicial reviewable but the government did not proceed with the clause.
Another clause would have allowed any evidence of proceedings in Parliament to be admissible in proceedings for an offence of providing information for the purposes of making a claim under the allowances scheme which the member knew to be false or misleading in a material respect. This would have included words spoken by MPs, evidence given by witnesses to committees and advice given by House officials. This was defeated despite a three-line whip.
The Clerk and Chief Executive of the House of Commons, Dr Malcolm Jack, gave evidence to the Justice Select Committee who were considering the Ministry’s assurance that the risk of disapplying some aspects of the Bill of Rights was low because the courts will show due defence to and concern for the issues about Parliament. How the government felt able to speak for what the judges would do in the future was not explained.
Dr Jack commented that it was also “low risk to drive up the motorway in the middle of the night on the wrong side of the road, but the impact would be enormous if you were involved in an accident”.
Article IX is the basis for privilege in all Commonwealth Parliaments. Australia had thought through the issue and produced a Parliamentary Privileges Act but this is not on the agenda in this country.
Two clauses fell by the wayside. One would have required a Code of Conduct to incorporate “the Nolan principles”; whether it did could easily have become judicial reviewable but the government did not proceed with the clause.
Another clause would have allowed any evidence of proceedings in Parliament to be admissible in proceedings for an offence of providing information for the purposes of making a claim under the allowances scheme which the member knew to be false or misleading in a material respect. This would have included words spoken by MPs, evidence given by witnesses to committees and advice given by House officials. This was defeated despite a three-line whip.
The Clerk and Chief Executive of the House of Commons, Dr Malcolm Jack, gave evidence to the Justice Select Committee who were considering the Ministry’s assurance that the risk of disapplying some aspects of the Bill of Rights was low because the courts will show due defence to and concern for the issues about Parliament. How the government felt able to speak for what the judges would do in the future was not explained.
Dr Jack commented that it was also “low risk to drive up the motorway in the middle of the night on the wrong side of the road, but the impact would be enormous if you were involved in an accident”.
Article IX is the basis for privilege in all Commonwealth Parliaments. Australia had thought through the issue and produced a Parliamentary Privileges Act but this is not on the agenda in this country.
The prospect of the courts “calling into question” proceedings of Parliament despite Article IX of the Bill of Rights receded when the government’s hastily drafted Parliamentary Standards Bill received an early mauling.
Chair of the Bar reports back
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs
A £500 donation from AlphaBiolabs has been made to the leading UK charity tackling international parental child abduction and the movement of children across international borders
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, outlines the drug and alcohol testing options available for family law professionals, and how a new, free guide can help identify the most appropriate testing method for each specific case
By Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, examines the latest ONS data on drug misuse and its implications for toxicology testing in family law cases
A career shaped by advocacy beyond her practice, and the realities of living with an invisible disability – Dr Natasha Shotunde, Black Barristers’ Network Co-Founder and its Chair for seven years, reflects on a decade at the Bar
The odds of success are as unforgiving as ever, but ambition clearly isn’t in short supply. David Wurtzel’s annual deep‑dive into the competition cohort shows who’s entering, who’s thriving and the trends that will define the next wave
Where to start and where to find help? Monisha Shah, Chair of the King’s Counsel Selection Panel, provides an overview of the silk selection process, debunking some myths along the way
Do chatbot providers owe a duty of care for negligent misstatements? Jasper Wong suggests that the principles applicable to humans should apply equally to machines
There is no typical day in the life as a Supreme Court judicial assistant, says Josephine Gillingwater, and that’s what makes the role so enjoyably diverse
