Letter: Commons privilege

David C. de Massey Ely,Cambridgeshire
Tuesday 20 April 1999 23:02 BST
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

Commons privilege

Sir: The news (report, 20 April) that the Speaker of the House of Commons has refused to make the decision to restore the Newark seat to the duly elected MP after the Court of Appeal had quashed her earlier conviction, but has instead referred it to the High Court, is greatly regrettable.

In an ordinary court of law, there has been guidance by the Court of Appeal as regards the giving and taking of expert advice; but in matters relating to the Houses of Parliament, each House is "its own master" and no court in the land could challenge these prerogatives or conventions.

I am sure that the late Lord Chief Justice Edward Coke would turn in his grave to learn from whatever place he is dwelling now that the current Speaker of the Commons has refused to exercise her authority in the conduct of the business of the House. In the early 17th century he wrote in his Institutes (4th volume, p36): "Of the power and jurisdiction of Parliament, for making laws in proceedings by Bill, it is so transcendent and absolute, as it cannot be confined either for causes or persons within any bounds."

The case of Fiona Jones at the present time is purely a procedural matter for the House of Commons alone.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in