Statement following Lord Hanningfield trial

Statement

'In 2014, the House of Lords found that Lord Hanningfield broke its rules and imposed the maximum penalty available at the time – suspension for the rest of the Parliament in which the breach of its rules occurred. He was suspended for breaching the House of Lords Code of Conduct by claiming allowances for attending the House over 11 days when he undertook no parliamentary work. He was also required to repay the public money wrongly claimed from the House.

'The decision to halt Lord Hanningfield’s trial today was made by the Judge. Parliamentary privilege was raised by the defence with the court towards the end of last year, but the House of Lords Administration was not told about that application or of the court’s ruling on it. If it had been, a submission in similar terms would have been made at the time. The House of Lords Administration sought to assist the court by making written submissions last week on the question of whether parliamentary privilege might apply to aspects of the trial, including the question of what did or did not amount to “parliamentary work”, following the receipt of papers outlining the nature of the prosecution case. The submission explicitly stated that this did not mean that the trial should not proceed.

'In giving his ruling on a CPS request to adjourn the trial, Judge Alistair McCreath confirmed that the issue of whether Lord Hanningfield was carrying out parliamentary work does not fall under the jurisdiction of the criminal justice system.'

• House of Lords Administration: written submission on whether parliamentary privilege might apply to Lord Hanningfield trial