A v United Kingdom [2002]
Share
In A v United Kingdom [2003] 36 EHRR 51, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) examined the compatibility of Parliamentary privilege with the rights guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), particularly focusing on the right to a fair hearing under Article 6 of the ECHR. The central issue before the ECHR was whether Parliamentary privilege, as exercised in this case, violated the individual's right to a fair hearing and their right to private life under the ECHR.
The applicant in this case lived in social housing provided by a housing association and faced racial abuse. She was relocated to another residence, but in 1996, the Member of Parliament (MP) for the area initiated a parliamentary debate on municipal housing policies. During the debate, the MP referred to the applicant multiple times, labelling her as a "neighbour from hell" and accusing her of criminal activities. The applicant denied the allegations, and the MP did not attempt to communicate with her or verify the accuracy of his comments. The media further publicised the accusations, leading to hate letters and public abuse against the applicant.
The ECtHR held that restrictions on Convention rights, including Articles 6 could be justified by the need to protect free speech in Parliament, as embodied in the principle of Parliamentary privilege. Judge Costa reaffirmed the absolute nature of the immunity enjoyed by MPs regarding their statements, emphasising that this immunity serves an important interest justifying the denial of access to court for seeking redress. Despite the serious interference with the applicant's private and family life resulting from the MP's speech, the ECtHR concluded that the rights under Article 6 and Article 8 of the ECHR were not infringed.
The case raises concerns about the lack of redress for an applicant suffering defamation from a Member of Parliament, regardless of the severity of the allegations and their impact on the individual's life. It suggests that defamatory statements may not be opinions protected by parliamentary immunity but rather misinformation.
The judgment also contemplates whether parliamentary privilege needs to extend to the press, citing the example of the French government where immunity applies only in the course of their duty. Furthermore, the dissenting opinion of Judge Loucaides argues that the complete lack of remedy for the applicant, despite the damages suffered, could amount to a violation of Article 13 of the ECHR.
The applicant in this case lived in social housing provided by a housing association and faced racial abuse. She was relocated to another residence, but in 1996, the Member of Parliament (MP) for the area initiated a parliamentary debate on municipal housing policies. During the debate, the MP referred to the applicant multiple times, labelling her as a "neighbour from hell" and accusing her of criminal activities. The applicant denied the allegations, and the MP did not attempt to communicate with her or verify the accuracy of his comments. The media further publicised the accusations, leading to hate letters and public abuse against the applicant.
The ECtHR held that restrictions on Convention rights, including Articles 6 could be justified by the need to protect free speech in Parliament, as embodied in the principle of Parliamentary privilege. Judge Costa reaffirmed the absolute nature of the immunity enjoyed by MPs regarding their statements, emphasising that this immunity serves an important interest justifying the denial of access to court for seeking redress. Despite the serious interference with the applicant's private and family life resulting from the MP's speech, the ECtHR concluded that the rights under Article 6 and Article 8 of the ECHR were not infringed.
The case raises concerns about the lack of redress for an applicant suffering defamation from a Member of Parliament, regardless of the severity of the allegations and their impact on the individual's life. It suggests that defamatory statements may not be opinions protected by parliamentary immunity but rather misinformation.
The judgment also contemplates whether parliamentary privilege needs to extend to the press, citing the example of the French government where immunity applies only in the course of their duty. Furthermore, the dissenting opinion of Judge Loucaides argues that the complete lack of remedy for the applicant, despite the damages suffered, could amount to a violation of Article 13 of the ECHR.
