Home » Constitutional »
Bradlaugh v Gossett; 9 Feb 1884
BRADLAUGH V GOSSETT; 9 FEB 1884
July
25, 2016 dls 0 Constitutional,
References: (1884)
12 QBD 271, 32 WR 552, 53 LJQB 209, 50 LT 620, [1884] EWHC 1
(QB) Links: Bailii Coram: Lord
Coleridge, Stephen J Ratio:Bradlaugh,
though duly elected Member for a Borough, was refused by the Speaker
to administer oath and was excluded from the House by the serjeant at
arms. B challenged the action.
Held: The matter related to the internal management of the House of Commons and the Court had no power to interfere.
Lord Coleridge said: ‘There is another proposition equally true, equally well established, which seems to me decisive of the case before us. What is said or done within the walls of Parliament cannot be inquired into a Court of law. On this point all the judges in the two great cases which exhaust the learning on the subject – Burdott v Abbott (1811) 14 East 1 and Stockdale v Hansard (1839) 9 Ad & E 1 – are agreed, and are emphatic. The jurisdiction of the Houses over their own members, their right to impose discipline within their walls, is absolute and exclusive.’
Stephen J said: ‘I think that the House of Commons is not subject to the control of Her Majesty’s Courts in its administration of that part of the statute law which has relation to its own internal proceedings, and that the use of such actual force as may be necessary to carry into effect such a resolution as the one before us is justifiable’ and ‘The only force which comes in question in this case is such force as any private man might employ to prevent a trespass on his own land. I know of no authority for the proposition that an ordinary crime committed in the House of Commons would be withdrawn from the ordinary course of criminal justice. One of the leading authorities on the privilege of Parliament contains matter on the point and shows how careful Parliament has been to avoid even the appearance of countenancing such a doctrine.’ This case cites:
Held: The matter related to the internal management of the House of Commons and the Court had no power to interfere.
Lord Coleridge said: ‘There is another proposition equally true, equally well established, which seems to me decisive of the case before us. What is said or done within the walls of Parliament cannot be inquired into a Court of law. On this point all the judges in the two great cases which exhaust the learning on the subject – Burdott v Abbott (1811) 14 East 1 and Stockdale v Hansard (1839) 9 Ad & E 1 – are agreed, and are emphatic. The jurisdiction of the Houses over their own members, their right to impose discipline within their walls, is absolute and exclusive.’
Stephen J said: ‘I think that the House of Commons is not subject to the control of Her Majesty’s Courts in its administration of that part of the statute law which has relation to its own internal proceedings, and that the use of such actual force as may be necessary to carry into effect such a resolution as the one before us is justifiable’ and ‘The only force which comes in question in this case is such force as any private man might employ to prevent a trespass on his own land. I know of no authority for the proposition that an ordinary crime committed in the House of Commons would be withdrawn from the ordinary course of criminal justice. One of the leading authorities on the privilege of Parliament contains matter on the point and shows how careful Parliament has been to avoid even the appearance of countenancing such a doctrine.’ This case cites:
-
Cited – Sir Francis Burdett, Bart v The Right Hon Charles Abbot KBD ((1811) 14 East 1, Commonlii, [1811] EngR 83, (1811) 104 ER 501)
To an action of trespass against the Speaker of the House of Commons for forcibly, and, with the assistance of armed soldiers, breaking into the messuage of the plaintiff (the outer door being shut and fastened,) and arresting him there, and taking . . -
Cited – John Joseph Stockdale v James Hansard, Luke Graves Hansard, Luke James Hansard, And Luke Henry Hansard (, Commonlii, [1839] EngR 139, (1839) 9 Ad & E 1, (1839) 112 ER 1112)
It is no defence in law to an action for publishing a libel that the defamatory matter is part of a document which was, by order of the House of Comnions, laid before the House, and thereupon became part of the proceedings of the House, and which . .
(This
list may be incomplete)
This case is cited by:
This case is cited by:
-
Cited – Jennings v Buchanan PC (Bailii, [2004] UKPC 36, Times 19-Jul-04, PC, PC, [2004] EMLR 22, [2005] 1 AC 115, [2005] 2 All ER 273)
(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 . . -
Cited – Prebble v Television New Zealand Ltd PC (Times 13-Jul-94, Gazette 26-Oct-94, [1995] 1 AC 321, [1994] 3 NZLR 1, Bailii, [1994] 3 WLR 970)
(New Zealand) The plaintiff, an MP, pursued a defamation case. The defendant wished to argue for the truth of what was said, and sought to base his argument on things said in Parliament. The plaintiff responded that this would be a breach of . . -
Cited – Prebble v Television New Zealand Ltd PC (Times 13-Jul-94, Gazette 26-Oct-94, [1995] 1 AC 321, [1994] 3 NZLR 1, Bailii, [1994] 3 WLR 970)
(New Zealand) The plaintiff, an MP, pursued a defamation case. The defendant wished to argue for the truth of what was said, and sought to base his argument on things said in Parliament. The plaintiff responded that this would be a breach of . . -
Cited – Regina v Morley; Regina v Chaytor; Regina v Devine; Regina v Lord Hanningfield CC ([2010] EW Misc 9 (EWCC), Bailii, Judiciary)
(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 . . -
Cited – Chaytor and Others, Regina v CACD (Bailii, [2010] EWCA Crim 1910, [2010] WLR (D) 214, WLRD)
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 . . -
Cited – Chaytor and Others, Regina v SC (Bailii, [2010] UKSC 52, Bailli Summary, [2010] WLR (D) 311, WLRD, UKSC 2010/0195, SC Summary, SC, [2011] 1 Cr App R 22, [2010] 3 WLR 1707, [2011] 1 All ER 805)
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 . . -
Cited – Mereworth v Ministry of Justice ChD (Bailii, [2011] EWHC 1589 (Ch))
The claimant’s father had been granted the hereditary title of Baron of Mereworth. The claimant having inherited th etitle objected to the refusal to issue to him a writ of summons to sit in the House of Lords.
Held: The claim was struck out . .
(This
list may be incomplete)
Last
Update: 25-Jul-16
資深大律師潘熙的論據乃源自英國案例。但該處實施立法機關主權（legal sovereignty).人民選出國會有無上權威。相反，香港不是主權國，三權組成和運作均受制於基本法。
區慶祥大法官在梁游案HCAL 185/2016 否定潘熙說法。同時採納張舉能大法官在鄭家純對李鳳英[2011] 2 HKLRD 555 的判法。
早前亦有吳藹儀大律師撰文陳述類似觀點。
