Judge rules MPs accused of fiddling their expenses should face criminal trial

Three former Labour MPs and a Tory peer will stand trial in a criminal court accused of fiddling their expenses, a judge ruled today.

Mr Justice Saunders told Southwark Crown Court in London that the four men are not protected from prosecution by parliamentary privilege.

Former Labour MPs Elliot Morley, David Chaytor and Jim Devine and Tory peer Lord Hanningfield had argued they should be protected from criminal charges.

They sought to use the Bill of Rights 1689 to argue that parliamentary privilege meant their fate should be decided by the Commons and not the courts.

But the judge said: 'I can see no logical, practical or moral justification for a claim for expenses being covered by privilege; and I can see no legal justification for it either.

'In my judgment, the conduct alleged against these defendants is not covered by Parliamentary privilege and is triable in the Crown Court.

'Unless this decision is reversed on appeal, it clears the way for what most people accused of criminal behaviour would wish for: a fair trial before an impartial jury.'

Criminal trial: (Clockwise from left) Jim Devine, David Chaytor, Lord Hanningfield and Elliot Morley are all accused of false accounting in relation to their expenses

Parliamentary privilege is one of the founding principles of the UK constitution.

It was created in 1689 to protect MPs' freedom of speech after the civil war and upheavals of the 17th century.

The judge said claiming expenses forms were part of parliamentary proceedings and therefore protected was like saying a coin used in a slot machine was part of its machinery.

'The decision that I have had to make has not been easy,' he said. 'If the question of Parliamentary privilege had not been raised, I would have initiated this inquiry myself, as I would have had to satisfy myself that the allegations to be investigated at trial were not covered by privilege.'

He explained that privilege was not something the defendants could have waived even if they had wanted to because it belong to Parliament rather than individuals.

He insisted suggestions that they had raised the issue was 'some indication of guilt' were 'not only misconceived but also unfair'.

'Very important constitutional principles are involved which must be respected, and that must be the case even if it leads to a result which is unpopular not only with the public but also with Members of Parliament,' he said.

Mr Justice Saunders decided that the submission of expenses forms did not come under the jurisdiction of Parliament.

Expense claims were for individual benefit rather than for Parliament as a whole and MPs could not be criticised for failing to carry out their duties if they did not claim allowances, he said.

'None of the justifications for the existence of privilege would seem to apply to the submission of the form,' he said. 'In my judgment, it does not come within the scope of the "exclusive jurisdiction of Parliament" on any sensible construction of that privilege.'

The judge said it was accepted that privilege covered 'incidental matters' like drafts of speeches but ruled it would be 'stretching the meaning of the word incidental' to say it also including submitting expenses forms.

'It) would clearly be beyond the mischief the legislation was enacted to address. Whenever a line has to be drawn, there will be examples which suggest that line should be drawn elsewhere.'

The group have been given leave to appeal the ruling and their barrister has already signalled their intent to do so, setting the stage for further legal wrangling.

Mr Morley, Mr Chaytor, Mr Devine and Lord Hanningfield were all charged with false accounting under the Theft Act earlier this year. They all deny the charges.

Further details of the preparatory hearings relating to the case cannot be reported for legal reasons but the judge gave leave for his judgment to be made public.

WHAT IS PRIVILEGE?

Parliamentary privilege gives MPs the constitutional right of protection from civil or criminal liability for actions and statements made in relation to their duties.

Most notably, it lets MPs speak freely in the Commons chamber without fear of legal action for slander. It first developed to protect Parliament from royal interference.

There is no definitive guide about what constitutes privilege - it is decided in Parliament on a case by case basis.

It developed from Article 9 of the Bill of Rights, which states: 'Proceedings in parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court.'

Former Scunthorpe MP Mr Morley, 57, is accused of 'falsely claiming a furnishing allowance' after claiming more than £30,000 expenses for a mortgage he had already paid.

He claimed £16,000 at £800 a month in mortgage interest between March 2006 and November 2007.

A second charge alleges that between April 2004 and February 2006 Morley made a further false mortgage interest claim. Again he is accused of claiming £800 a month, a total overpayment of £14,428.67.

Mr Chaytor, 60, the former MP for Bury North, is accused of providing false information on an allowances form under the Theft Act 1968 after claiming £18,000 for rent he paid to himself.

He falsely claimed £12,925 in rent between September 2005 and August 2006 for a London flat when he was the owner of the premises.

Between August 2007 and January 2008 he also rented a cottage at taxpayers' expense at a rate of £775 a month from his mother Olive Trickett. He pocketed £5,425.

The former MP is also accused of filing two invoices for computer IT services worth £975 in 2006.

Ex-Livingston MP Mr Devine, 56, is ccused of falsely claiming expenses in March 2009 after submitting two misleading invoices for printing services worth £5,505.

He is also charged with dishonestly claiming allowances for repair, insurance or security between July 2008 and May 2009 by submitting false invoices for services, cleaning and maintenance of £3,240.

Tory peer Lord Hanningfield, 69, faces six charges relating to false travel expenses claims. He is alleged to have claimed Lords overnight allowances in London when he had actually returned to his Essex home.

The offences are alleged to have taken place between March 2006 and April 2009.

The last MP to face trial over fraud was the Tory Peter Baker in 1954. He was jailed for seven years and expelled from the Commons after being convicted of forging signatures on letters to guarantee his business debts.

All four defendants are on unconditional bail.