Magistrate insists accused MPs stand in the dock

THREE LABOUR MPs who have been barred from standing again for their party were yesterday ordered to stand in the dock by a magistrate…

THREE LABOUR MPs who have been barred from standing again for their party were yesterday ordered to stand in the dock by a magistrate when they appeared to answer charges of fiddling parliamentary expenses.

The three, David Chaytor, Jim Devine and Elliot Morley, had wanted to stay in the body of Westminster Magistrates’ Court rather than take places in the dock before they were ordered to do by the judge, Timothy Workman.

The fourth accused, Conservative peer Lord Hanningfield, stood in the dock from the beginning.

The lawyer for the three MPs, who all face charges of false accounting under the Theft Act, told the court they should not be subject to criminal prosecution under a 320-year-old law and should instead have their case judged by the House of Commons authorities.

READ MORE

Lord Hanningfield will make the same argument.

Julian Knowles, for the MPs, said that to prosecute his clients in the criminal courts for their parliamentary activities “ would infringe the principle of the separation of powers, which is one of the principles which underpins the UK’s constitutional structure”.

“My clients should not be understood as saying they are above the law. That would be quite wrong. Parliamentary privilege is part of the law, and it is for parliament to apply the law in their cases. The issues raised by these three cases are of high constitutional importance.”

As the accused MPs left the court, protesters briefly surrounded their taxi, shouting “Pigs”, and “Oink, Oink”.

Livingston MP Jim Devine is accused of submitting two false invoices for £5,500 for a cleaning bill and dishonestly claiming expenses for repair, insurance or security bills.

Mr Chaytor is accused of claiming expenses for rent on a property he owned, and submitting false office expenses.

Former minister Elliot Morley is alleged to have claimed expenses to cover a mortgage payment on a property that had already been paid off, while Lord Hanningfield faces six charges of claiming expenses for accommodation in London when he had, in fact, been driven to his home in Essex.