Re Parliamentary Privileges Act 1770 [1958] (The Strauss Case)
Share
Re Parliamentary Privileges Act 1770 [1958] AC 331, often referred to as the Strauss Case, revolves around the protection of the freedom of speech of Members of Parliament (MPs) under the Bill of Rights. The key issue was whether the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1770 could be used to threaten or challenge MPs for their actions or positions taken during the "proceedings in Parliament".
The Bill of Rights 1688, Article 9, explicitly states that the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament should not be impeached or questioned in any court or place outside of Parliament. An MP had sent a letter to a minister, making allegations against the company British Electricity. In response, the London Electricity Board threatened to sue the MP for libel, invoking the Parliamentary Privilege Act 1770.
The Privy Council, in its judgment, held that the 1770 Act could not be used to threaten MPs for actions taken during the proceedings in Parliament. Viscount Simmonds, in delivering the judgment, expressed that a literal interpretation of the 1770 Act would lead to the repeal of the ninth article of the Bill of Rights, a conclusion that should not be lightly reached. To reconcile the 1770 Act with the Bill of Rights, its meaning was limited to proceedings against MPs concerning their debts and actions as individuals, excluding their conduct in Parliament as Members of Parliament.
Viscount Simmonds emphasised the vital ability of MPs to speak without fear or favour in Parliament, asserting that the 1770 Act should not compromise this ancient and important privilege. The judgment suggested that treating the issuance of a writ against an MP for a speech or proceeding in Parliament as a breach of privilege would be consistent with the 1770 Act.
It is noteworthy that Lord Denning provided a dissenting opinion, advocating for a broader interpretation of the 1770 Act. He argued that the act entitled anyone to bring an action against an MP without it being impeached under any privilege, reading the act literally. Lord Denning's interpretation, in contrast to the majority opinion, allowed actions against MPs to proceed in court without the House of Commons having the power to find a breach of privilege.
The case highlights the tension between protecting parliamentary privilege and allowing legal actions against MPs. The Privy Council's interpretation sought to preserve the crucial privilege of MPs to speak freely in Parliament, and this decision has been subject to debate, as exemplified by Lord Denning's dissenting view.
The Bill of Rights 1688, Article 9, explicitly states that the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament should not be impeached or questioned in any court or place outside of Parliament. An MP had sent a letter to a minister, making allegations against the company British Electricity. In response, the London Electricity Board threatened to sue the MP for libel, invoking the Parliamentary Privilege Act 1770.
The Privy Council, in its judgment, held that the 1770 Act could not be used to threaten MPs for actions taken during the proceedings in Parliament. Viscount Simmonds, in delivering the judgment, expressed that a literal interpretation of the 1770 Act would lead to the repeal of the ninth article of the Bill of Rights, a conclusion that should not be lightly reached. To reconcile the 1770 Act with the Bill of Rights, its meaning was limited to proceedings against MPs concerning their debts and actions as individuals, excluding their conduct in Parliament as Members of Parliament.
Viscount Simmonds emphasised the vital ability of MPs to speak without fear or favour in Parliament, asserting that the 1770 Act should not compromise this ancient and important privilege. The judgment suggested that treating the issuance of a writ against an MP for a speech or proceeding in Parliament as a breach of privilege would be consistent with the 1770 Act.
It is noteworthy that Lord Denning provided a dissenting opinion, advocating for a broader interpretation of the 1770 Act. He argued that the act entitled anyone to bring an action against an MP without it being impeached under any privilege, reading the act literally. Lord Denning's interpretation, in contrast to the majority opinion, allowed actions against MPs to proceed in court without the House of Commons having the power to find a breach of privilege.
The case highlights the tension between protecting parliamentary privilege and allowing legal actions against MPs. The Privy Council's interpretation sought to preserve the crucial privilege of MPs to speak freely in Parliament, and this decision has been subject to debate, as exemplified by Lord Denning's dissenting view.