Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Ch19 Parliamentary privilege / ACTS CONSTITUTING BREACHES OF PRIVILEGE AND CONTEMPTS / Misconduct / Deliberately misleading the House



Download WordDownload Word

House of Representatives                                Ch 19                                                 p 729

 

Parliamentary privilege / ACTS CONSTITUTING BREACHES OF PRIVILEGE AND CONTEMPTS / Misconduct

 

Deliberately misleading the House

May states:

The Commons may treat the making of a deliberately misleading statement as a contempt. In 1963 the House resolved that in making a personal statement which contained words which he later admitted not to be true, a former Member had been guilty of a grave contempt. 1 ( Profumo’s Case , CJ (1962-63) 246)

The circumstances surrounding the decision of the House of Commons in Profumo’s Case are of importance because of the guidance provided in cases of alleged misrepresentation by Members. Mr Profumo had sought the opportunity of making a personal statement to the House of Commons to deny the truth of allegations currently being made against him. Later he was forced to admit that in making his personal statement of denial to the House, he had deliberately misled the House. As a consequence of his actions, he resigned from the House which subsequently agreed to a resolution declaring him guilty of a grave contempt.

Whilst claims that Members have deliberately misled the House have been raised as matters of privilege or contempt, the Speaker has not, to date, accepted such a claim.

On 16 September 1986 Speaker Child advised the House that she had appraised a statement to the House on 22 August by a Member, following her reference to remarks critical of her attributed to the Member. The Speaker, having examined the transcripts of the remarks in question, and comparing them to the Member’s statement to the House, claimed that he had misled the House and this action, in her opinion, constituted a contempt of the House. The Member then addressed the House on the matter. The Chairman of Committees then moved a motion to the effect, inter alia, that the Member’s statement to the House on 22 August ‘being clearly at odds with his original comments, misled the House, and thus constitutes a contempt of the House . . .’ After debate, and the Member having again withdrawn the remarks to which attention had been drawn, and having again apologised, the motion was withdrawn, by leave 2 ( and see Chapters on ‘The Speaker, Deputy Speakers and officers’ and ‘Motions’).



May , 23rd edn, p. 132.



VP 1985-87/1089, 1090, 1101-2.