McGuinness, Re Application for Judicial Review: QBNI 3 Oct 1997

The claimant was an MP from Northern Ireland. As an MP he had been required to swear allegiance to the Crown, but he had refused to do so for his belief in an independent Ireland. He challenged the decision of the Speaker of the House to refuse him his expenses due as an MP.
Held: There was no human rights breach, but the allegation related to a matter within the area of exclusive jurisdiction that the House enjoyed over its own business. The Speaker’s decision ‘could not be challenged by way of judicial review’. The Speaker’s announcement in the House of Commons of action taken by her on behalf of the House to regulate the use by members of services which are ancillary to their work within the Chamber was a proceeding in Parliament and immune from judicial intervention. By virtue of article 9 ‘control of its own internal arrangements has long been recognised as falling uniquely within Parliament’s domain and superintendence from which the court’s intervention is excluded’.
Kerr J
[1997] NIQB 2, [1997] NI 359
Bailii
Parliamentary Oaths Act 1866, Bill of Rights 1689 9
Cited by:
CitedRegina v Morley; Regina v Chaytor; Regina v Devine; Regina v Lord Hanningfield CC 11-Jun-2010
(Southwark Crown Court) The defendants faced charges of false accounting in connection with expense claims as members of parliament, three of the House of Commons and one of the Lords. Each claimed that the matter was covered by Parliamentary . .
CitedChaytor and Others, Regina v CACD 30-Jul-2010
The defendants had been members of the Houses of Commons and of Lords. They faced charges of dishonesty in respect of their expenses claims. They now appealed a finding that they were not subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of Parliament under . .
CitedChaytor and Others, Regina v SC 1-Dec-2010
The defendants faced trial on charges of false accounting in connection in different ways with their expenses claims whilst serving as members of the House of Commons. They appealed against rejection of their assertion that the court had no . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 February 2021; Ref: scu.249212