Legal Research
Cases
Chaytor & Ors, R v (Rev 2)

Chaytor & Ors, R v (Rev 2)

Case [2010] UKSC 52

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Summary

Michaelmas Term
[2010] UKSC 52
On appeal from: [2010] EWCA Civ 1910

JUDGMENT

R v Chaytor and others (Appellants)

before

Lord Phillips, President
Lord Hope, Deputy President
Lord Rodger
Lady Hale
Lord Brown
Lord Mance
Lord Collins
Lord Kerr
Lord Clarke

REASONS GIVEN ON

1 December 2010

FOR THE ORDER MADE ON

10 November 2010

Heard on 18 and 19 October 2010

First Appellant Nigel Pleming QC Julian Knowles (Instructed by Steel & Shamash Solicitors)		Second Appellant Edward Fitzgerald QC Joseph Middleton (Instructed by Steel & Shamash Solicitors)

Third Appellant Nigel Pleming QC Rebecca Trowler (Instructed by Steel & Shamash Solicitors)		Respondent Lord Pannick QC Louis Mably James Segan (Instructed by Crown Prosecution Service Special Crime Division)

Intervener (written submissions) Alun Jones QC Rupert Bowers (Instructed by Keystone Law Limited)

LORD PHILLIPS

Introduction

Each of the appellants has been committed for trial at the Crown Court on charges of false accounting. I shall refer to them as "the defendants". The charges relate to claims in respect of parliamentary expenses and are alleged to have been committed when each defendant was a serving member of the House of Commons. A fourth defendant, Lord Hanningfield, who is a member of the House of Lords, faces similar charges. Each defendant and Lord Hanningfield is facing a separate trial but each of them has raised an important point of law. Each claims that criminal proceedings cannot be brought against him because they infringe parliamentary privilege. A single preparatory hearing pursuant to section 29 of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 was held to consider this point in relation to all four defendants. On 11 June 2010 Saunders J, sitting in Southwark Crown Court, ruled against the four defendants. All four appealed to the Court of Appeal. On 30 July 2010 that court, Lord Judge CJ, Lord Neuberger MR and Sir Anthony May, President of the Queen's Bench Division, dismissed their appeal. On 14 September 2010 the court certified that the appeal had raised a point of law of general public importance, refused permission to appeal to this court and granted a representation order for one leading counsel, one junior counsel and one solicitor to represent the four defendants jointly in the event of an application to this court for permission to appeal and any consequent appeal.

The defendants, but not Lord Hanningfield, sought permission to appeal. Lord Hanningfield sought permission to intervene. Permission was granted to him to intervene in writing for the limited purpose of drawing attention to any distinction between expenses schemes and privileges in the two Houses of Parliament. At the opening of the hearing the court granted permission to appeal.

On 10 November the court ordered that each of the three appeals be dismissed, for reasons to be delivered in due course. These are my reasons.

The charges

Each of the defendants has been charged with false accounting contrary to section 17(1)(b) of the Theft Act 1968, which provides in so far as material:

"False accounting

(1) Where…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Chaytor & Ors, R v (Rev 2)

Details

Case: [2010] UKSC 52
Decision Date