Hypocritical Cameron voted against proposals to reform parliamentary privilege

[...] Hypocritical Cameron voted against proposals to reform parliamentary privilege from Left Foot Forward [...]

This is a wholly moot point. Parliamentary privilege in regards to freedom of speech is accepted as necessary. To suggest removing it entirely was wrong without this government reforming our archaic libel laws first. Parliamentary privilege as claimed by 3 Labour MPs to avoid embezzlement charges is seriously wrong.

Social comments and analytics for this post…

This post was mentioned on Twitter by bristolwestpaul: Cameron opportunist and hypocrite voted against changes to Parliamentary Privilege http://ow.ly/1530b...

Talking of hypocrisy, don’t you think that the published opinions of the Home Secretary might carry as much weight, if not more, than the leader of the opposition? After all, Alan Johnson has said the privilege defense should not apply, and that the trial “should be on the same basis as any member of the public who goes through the courts system”. And even Downing Street said “No one believes that an MP has the right to be above the criminal law. Parliamentary privilege was clearly not intended to cover this.”

Perhaps you could explain why these comments are acceptable, but Cameron’s are unacceptable?

Everyone should watch what they say. I’d have thought Cameron’s comments in particular come very close to being in contempt.

I think you’re missing what was wrong with parts of the Bill which Cameron and others (including the Lib Dems) opposed: it was a rush job, badly drafted with wide but barely debated implications and with Parliament’s Privilege Committee warning about the impact of what it proposed.

Opposing a botched rush job was the right thing to do – even if one of the people doing it was David Cameron

“I’d have thought Cameron’s comments in particular come very close to being in contempt.”

What? Do you have the slightest idea of what contempt of court is? A court has not been convened yet, a trial has not been arranged, there *is no court* for Cameron to be in contempt of. Yassus.

In any event, nothing that Cameron (or indeed Alan Johnson or ‘Downing Street’, both of whom have said effectively the same thing – that ‘privilege’ should not be used as a defence here) has said could possibly be construed as contempt.

Is this the legendary ‘evidence based blogging’ of which I have heard so much?

I’m sorry but you’re wrong. Proceedings are active once an individual is charged. Any prejudicial reporting from that point on can be held in contempt.

I suggest you read this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/edguide/thelaw/contempt.shtml

And then this: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/1981/cukpga_19810049_en_1#pb3-l1g14

I think its all a complete nightmare anyway. They had a chance to prosecute errant MPs with Clause 10 of the Parliamentary Standards Bill, a golden opportunity if there was one and chose not to do so, deliberately not altering Article IX of the Bill of Rights Act. So they are now all hoist with their own petard.

As to contempt of court, well we’ve all committed that by endlessly discussing it. Its very doubtful whether this thing will now ever come to trial.

All this sounds like Cameron putting up a smokescreen in advance of the electoral reform vote – which the Tories are getting hysterical about.

And you’re arguing that Cameron is publishing material that is more likely to prejudice the outcome of the trial than the identical messages coming from the Home Office and Downing Street? Hmm.

Besides, I suspect that discussions as to the applicability of a parliamentary privilege defence, and whether such a defence is morally justifiable falls squarely under the exemption in clause 5 of the CCA.

“A publication made as or as part of a discussion in good faith of public affairs or other matters of general public interest is not to be treated as a contempt of court under the strict liability rule if the risk of impediment or prejudice to particular legal proceedings is merely incidental to the discussion.”

The argument that Cameron (or any other of the commentators) should be legally prohibited from commenting on these proceedings is ludicrous.

Tim J: Both the Home Secretary nor the Prime Minister said that privilege shouldn’t be used as a defence. Fine. But that’s not what the Leader of the Opposition has said – he has gone further, said that it should be legally removed as a defence, AND attacked the government for not already doing so – despite his blocking an attempt to do just that. I fail to see how anyone can claim that the Home Secretary’s or Prime Minister’s comments are hypocritical. The Leader of the Opposition’s certainly are.

Mark Pack: What were these implications? S.10 of the Bill was pretty narrow, providing only that privilege could not prevent IPSA and the Commissioner from carrying out their functions, or any evidence being admissible in regard to the offences created by s.9 of that Bill relating to expenses fraud and registration of interests. It wouldn’t affect any other criminal or civil cases, so Robson’s worries above are entirely misplaced.

And yeah, there’s no risk of anyone being prosecuted for contempt of court here. Since a contempt of court prosecution means admitting a fair trial is pretty much impossible, and therefore abandoning the prosecution, they’re really very rare. Even flagrant contempts like the headline ‘GOT THE BASTARDS’ when the 21/7 tube bombing suspects (as they were at the time) were arrested didn’t lead to anything.

Condemning someone because they voted against the Parliamentary Standards Bill doesn’t mean they are allowing MPs off the hook, it’s more complicated than that.

Why not come out and condemn those who seek privilege as their defence? I know this blog is big on Labour but if you can’t bring yourself to condemn the use of “privilege” then surely you’re not a progressive, you’re a reactionary.

Mark – ‘privilege’ in legal terms is different from ‘privilege’ in general. I think what the parliamentarians are doing in attempting to use parliamentary privilege to prevent investigation into possible fraud is incredibly grubby, debases the idea of parliamentary privilege, makes politicians in general look bad, and – in my opinion – won’t even work.

But that doesn’t mean legal privilege in general is a bad thing. The law that prevents the court from forcing your solicitor to testify against you is a form of privilege. So is the law that prevents a newspaper being sued for libel for printing a story that it believed to be true and behaved responsibly over (though that one isn’t as strong as it could be). And parliamentary privilege prevents MPs for being sued or prosecuted for things they say in parliament, to allow them to speak without fear.

Mark,

I’ve given no opinion on the privilege defence, nor on the participants’ innocene or guilt, either way. In terms of what Cameron said about withdrawing it as a defence, at this time, I cannot see how that would be fair – surely the applicability of privilege, as Keir Starmer clearly said, is up to the Courts, not a power-hungry politician, to decide.

There is also an argument to suggest that those involved should not face retrospective justice, and should be tried and be able to defend themselves under the laws that existed at the time.

Tom, I’m aware of the legal nature of “privilege”, thanks. As we’ve seen in the Trafigura case, it’s very useful in the right instances. That’s why I said it was a subtle issue and not really good point-scoring.

Shamik: Shape your words carefully but surely something smells wrong when Labour MPs claim “privilege” as their defence? Now it’s not for a politician to decide their fare but surely the matter of expenses cannot morally stretch to expenses? Labour are in danger of gifting Cameron an open goal here, the way the three weren’t suspended until Cameron called for it is only going to make Labour look like ditherers. Someone needs to get a grip and if the Party can’t make up its mind, bloggers should not be embarrassed to point out that parliamentary privilege is for more noble means than ducking expense claims.

Mark: My apologies. I thought from your reference to this being a progressive blog that you were condemning privilege in general. Which I’d be very happy to join you in doing, outside the legal sphere.

Dave, it's time you got your policies sorted out. http://is.gd/7WvGG

RT @LukePollard: Read this – RT @Juderobinson: Last year Cameron voted not to reform parl privilege. Now he accuses GB of blocking it http://bit.ly/bFwSbe

RT @leftfootfwd: Hypocritical Cameron voted against proposals to reform parliamentary privilege: http://is.gd/7WvGG

RT @bristolwestpaul: Cameron opportunist and hypocrite voted against changes to Parliamentary Privilege http://ow.ly/1530b

Like Shamic says, this is hipocricy.

If Cameron’s so serious, why has he not expelled Lord Hanningfield who, lest we forget, has been charged as well.

And since we mention Allan Duncan, does anyone remember that this is the same Allan Duncan (who’s still I think in the shadow cabinet) who likened a new expenses regime to “living on rations?”

RT @bristolwestpaul: Cameron opportunist and hypocrite voted against changes to Parliamentary Privilege http://ow.ly/1530b

2 ids same tweet @TeeMarketing @websitenewsman Cameron knows about due process in suspensions "dithering"=dishonest http://ow.ly/1530b,

RT @bristolwestpaul Cameron opportunist and hypocrite voted against changes to Parliamentary Privilege http://ow.ly/1530b

Cameron: Hypocritical on parliamentary privilege? http://tiny.cc/cteOg (@leftfootfwd)

It says more about weak Cameron than anything else. Policy Wobbles with the Tory poll lead falling and Shallow Cam looks for a cheap headline, what a spineless leader the Cons have in Cam.

[...] comes as the row over the MPs’ attempts to use a defence of parliamentary privilege, which Left Foot Forward reported [...]

“But that’s not what the Leader of the Opposition has said – he has gone further, said that it should be legally removed as a defence, AND attacked the government for not already doing so – despite his blocking an attempt to do just that.”

Except that’s not what the Tories blocked – they voted against a proposal to remove the entire concept of parl’y privilege from IPSA referrals – and the Tories believe that privilege has a perfectly legitimate role in protecting the freedom of MPs from prosecution for what they say in Parliament. It’s a reasonably compelling argument – a former Labour Home Secretary and a former Labour Foreign Secretary agreed after all.

I note you seem to have rowed back on your preposterous argument that Cameron ought to be legally prohibited from voicing an opinion on this matter. Good stuff.

RT @mydavidcameron: RT @leftfootfwd Hypocritical Cameron voted against proposals to reform parliamentary privilege: http://is.gd/7WvGG

“Except that’s not what the Tories blocked – they voted against a proposal to remove the entire concept of parl’y privilege from IPSA referrals”

Yes. But if Cameron believe privilege should not apply to expenses, why should parliamentary privilege have any role in IPSA referrals?

RT @davecameroon: Look here chaps, it's not hypocritical to be against something before you were in favour of it, surely! http://is.gd/7WvGG

[...] of his speech? Reform, new politics, change etc. ect… The reality? As Left Foot Forward revealed on Monday, last year his MPs voted against proposals to reform parliamentary privilege, and on [...]