Tory peer Lord Hannigfield loses expenses ruling appeal

Former Essex County Council leader Lord Hanningfield has lost his appeal over a ruling that he is not protected from prosecution by parliamentary privilege over accusations he fiddled his expenses.

Tory peer Lord Hanningfield, who is also known as Paul White, 69, of West Hanningfield, near Chelmsford, along with former Labour MPs David Chaytor, Elliot Morley and Jim Devine, had their challenges rejected by Court of Appeal judges in London. They deny theft by false accounting.

The four appealed against a ruling in June by Mr Justice Saunders, sitting at Southwark Crown Court in central London. He rejected arguments that they were protected by parliamentary privilege and should be dealt with by Parliament alone.

The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, sitting with Lord Neuberger and Sir Anthony May, agreed with the judge.

Each of the four defendants, who are all on unconditional bail, face separate criminal trials as a result of the ruling. But it is open to them to seek to take their case to the Supreme Court for a further challenge.

Lord Hanningfield faces six charges of making dishonest claims for travelling allowances.

Lord Judge said: "Just because of the publicity which the cases have attracted, it remains to be emphasised that none has been convicted, each is presumed to be innocent, and the evidence in support of the allegations made against them has not yet been tested, evaluated and judged by a jury."

The appeals raised "important questions of public interest about the nature and ambit of parliamentary privilege" and had required examination in depth. It was now "established beyond argument that the application of parliamentary privilege in any particular situation is ultimately decided by courts".

He said: "In the present appeals it is clear... that Parliament has decided that the ordinary processes of the criminal law should be followed. If the alleged conduct constitutes a breach of the rules of either House, that will be addressed at the conclusion of the criminal proceedings."

In the court's judgment - which cited cases going back as far as 1629 involving Sir John Eliot - Lord Judge said: "Properly understood, the privileges of Parliament are the privileges of the nation and the bedrock of our constitutional democracy."