Rex v Creevey Esq MP: 1813

A statement made out of Parliament is not to be protected by its absolute privilege even if what is said simply repeats what was said inside the House.
A member of the House of Commons may be convicted upon an indictment for a libel in publishing in a newspaper the report of a speech delivered by him in that House, if it contain libellous matter, although the publication be a correct report of such speech, and be made in consequence of an incorrect publication having appeared in that and other newspapers.
(1813) 1 M and S 273, (1813) 105 ER 102, [1813] EngR 254
Cited by:
CitedJennings v Buchanan PC 14-Jul-2004
(New Zealand) (Attorney General of New Zealand intervening) The defendant MP had made a statement in Parliament which attracted parliamentary privilege. In a subsequent newspaper interview, he said ‘he did not resile from his claim’. He defended the . .
[2004] UKPC 36, Times 19-Jul-04, [2004] EMLR 22, [2005] 1 AC 115, [2005] 2 All ER 273
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 . .
[2010] UKSC 52, [2010] WLR (D) 311, UKSC 2010/0195, [2011] 1 Cr App R 22, [2010] 3 WLR 1707, [2011] 1 All ER 805, [2011] 1 AC 684
CitedMakudi v Baron Triesman of Tottenham CA 26-Feb-2014
Appeal against strike out of claims for defamation and malicious falsehood. The defendant had given evidence to the Culture Media and Sport Select Committee of the House of Commons with material highly critical of the claimant, a member of FIFA’s . .
[2014] EWCA Civ 179, [2014] EMLR 17, [2014] 3 All ER 36, [2014] 1 QB 839, [2014] WLR(D) 98, [2014] QB 839, [2014] 2 WLR 1228

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 December 2020; Ref: scu.199242