Talk:Parliamentary privilege

UK Freedom of Speech

It seems as if a senior judge has warned MPs they may not be able to violate a court injunction even if speaking in Parliament. 'Hiding behind parliamentary privilege was not a clear-cut defence either, he [England's Lord Chief Justice] warned. Lord Neuberger, the senior judge who chaired the year-long inquiry into injunctions, added that the law surrounding parliamentary privilege was "astonishingly unclear".' http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics-news/2011/05/21/politicians-warned-they-face-jail-if-they-break-injunctions-86908-23146315/

174.115.226.95 (talk) 20:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to second the implicit request of our anonymous colleague above that this article be expanded and improved, if we have the means to do so. I came to this article because I was curious about the exact legal situation with respect to the recent revelations about Ryan Giggs and wanted to do some background research as to how Parliamentary privilege works. I didn't come away satisfied that we have a comprehensive treatment of it here.

In particular, we have a whole section about the House of Commons, but it is unclear as to whether the Lords sits in the same position. (One sentence in our introduction suggests so, but..)

In the case of Giggs, as a rank amateur I assume that there is some absolute right of the press to report what goes on in Parliament such that if a legislator says something, it can be reported in the papers, superinjunction or no. But I note that current reporting on his life goes far far far beyond what was said in Parliament, because now the superinjunction was lifted, but I wonder why. Obviously it is not up to Wikipedia to offer speculation on these and related matters, but I hope we can give the reader more background so they can have an educated understanding of the issue.

I'm completely unqualified to do anything about this, so I just leave this note here in hopes of inspiring someone or someones to give it a go.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

wrt the above, I was reading the article and wondering why the Guardian/Trafigura case isn't mentioned under "Leading cases" section. It's huge important (probably more so than the Ryan Giggs issue) as it was the first case that came to widespread public knowledge after Carter-Ruck obtained an injunction preventing the Guardian reporting the proceedings of parliament (the injunction was lifted before anyone actually formally ruled on whether the media have the right to report things covered under parliamentary privilege, but most members of the house seemed pretty angry - e.g. Paul Farrelly calling it "contempt of parliament"). This famously led to the Guardian publishing the following article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/12/guardian-gagged-from-reporting-parliament on their front page and internet users engaging in mass contempt of court. Anyway, unless someone can explain why this has been left off this list I shall add it in. GoddersUK (talk) 00:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added this. GoddersUK (talk) 00:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arrest

So can MPs in the UK be arrested or are they protected against that? Do they have to be sacked first? If so who sacks them as MPs, is it the queen or can the rest of parliament do it or is the speaker?

Thanks

CaptinJohn 13:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no privilege now against arrest for a crime or even something less (Archibald Maule Ramsay). Arrest for a civil default is uncertain now after M v. Home Office but probably no longer privileged. The House of Commons itself can expel an MP, that's one of its privileges!: see Charles Bradlaugh, Garry Allighan, ... Cutler 17:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Use of "liar"

Is it actually the case that legislators are forbidden by convention from using the word "liar", or simply that they may not call each other liar? If the former, then it is not always enforced: just today, Gerald Howarth referred to Mohamed Al-Fayed as "this thief, crook and liar" in the House of Commons, and the BBC News report does not say that the Speaker reproved him for his comments. Loganberry (Talk) 19:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Parliamentary privilege. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:25, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]