Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Bridget Prentice (Labour) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 21 October 2009. It occurred during Adjournment debate on English Libel Law (Parliamentary Proceedings).


English Libel Law (Parliamentary Proceedings)

I was just about to come to article 9 of the Bill of Rights. I am astonished that lawyers around the country are not aware that there is a difference between article 9 and the European convention, and so on. However, perhaps this will be an opportunity for them to be educated in that respect. Article 9 makes it clear that parliamentary questions, both oral and written, are proceedings in Parliament, and they are protected by absolute privilege. Article 9 provides that""proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court"." It can hardly be clearer. That means that MPs and Peers receive absolute protection from court proceedings for things said or done when engaged in their parliamentary duties. As the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) said, that is also the case for witnesses who give evidence before Select Committees. The reporting of parliamentary proceedings, like that of judicial proceedings, is protected by qualified privilege, which centres entirely around fair and accurate reporting—in other words, the material can be published, provided that it is fairly reported. In particular, reports that are motivated by malice would not be protected by privilege. Any reporting of Parliament that is fair and accurate is protected by that privilege. Mention was made of the sub-judice rule.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
497 c293WH 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
Westminster Hall
Subjects
Defamation Injunctions Parliamentary privilege Press freedom Parliamentary questions Parliamentary reporting The Guardian Trafigura Carter-Ruck Solicitors
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk