High Court rejects House of Commons’ Appeal on MPs’ Expenses - 16 May 2008

Administrative Court rejects appeal of the House of Commons as “unrealistic” and says “it is inconceivable that MPs could expect to conduct their affairs on the basis that recently enacted legislation did not apply to them”.

Press Release - For Immediate Release

 

The judgment handed down today by the Administrative Court (the President of the Queen’s Bench Division, Lord Justice Judge, sitting with Lord Justice Latham and Mr Justice Blake) dismissed the appeal of the House of Commons (HOC), heard on 7 May 2008, of the decision by the Information Tribunal in February 2008 (see attached press release: Campaigner Wins Battle For Full Disclosure of MPs’ Expenses).

Journalist and Freedom of Information campaigner Heather Brooke’s earlier victory has been confirmed in the detailed judgment, spanning 44 paragraphs.

This is the second time that the HOC’s position has been rejected following an initial decision by the Information Commissioner. On this occasion the dismissal of the HOC’s appeal has been made by a three judge sitting Administrative Court. The Court considered two grounds put forward by the HOC.

The first ground advanced was that the Information Tribunal had misdirected itself by failure to recognise the existence of, and therefore give appropriate weight to, the reasonable expectations of MPs. It was argued by Mr Nigel Giffin QC that this misdirection constituted an error of law which infected the entire decision. The Court, describing the Information Tribunal’s decision as “carefully structured” and “closely reasoned”, rejected this submission, and stated that the Tribunal’s judgment spoke for itself and that the arguments put forward on behalf of the HOC were “unrealistic”. The judges held that it is inconceivable that MPs could expect to conduct their affairs on the basis that recently enacted legislation did not apply to them all, and that the notion that the House was permitted to suspend or dispense with legislation for its own purposes were “wholly unreasonable”.

Supporting the battle of Ms Brooke and the other journalists, the Court confirmed that, in relation to the public interest, “public money should be, and seen to be properly spent”. It approved the Information Tribunal’s findings and commented that the HOCs’ shortfall - both in terms of transparency and accountability - was acute, and said “we have no doubt that the public interest is at stake”. It commented that the rules governing payment of the Additional Costs Allowances will bear on public confidence, and the legitimate public interest was engaged by Ms Brookes’ applications.

A second ground put forward by the House concerned disclosure of an individual private residential address of an MP claiming the Additional Cost Allowance. This was also rejected.

Agreeing with Hugh Tomlinson QC, for Heather Brooke, the Court agreed that this second submission was freshly made before the Court and should be rejected as lacking any evidential basis. The Court agreed with Mr Tomlinson that it should not endeavour to grapple with the point in the abstract, and that in the present case there was a legitimate public interest capable of providing justification for disclosure of the addresses.

Louis Charalambous, partner, Simons Muirhead & Burton, solicitors (acting on behalf of Heather Brooke), said:

“Perhaps now the House of Commons will give up its fight to retain its antiquated procedures for paying its members’ allowances without regard to transparency and the public interest. This decision confirms the advance in Freedom of Information law and is a significant victory for our client Heather Brooke and the other journalists.”

 

For more information or to interview either Ms Brooke or Mr Charalambous contact Clair Whitefield at The PR Office 0207 554 5043, cwhitefield@theproffice.com.

The Court's decision.

 

Notes to editors: