Save Search
    Prev   Next   Return to results listPrint ListEmail Document Link

Title

Ch19 Parliamentary privilege / ACTS CONSTITUTING BREACHES OF PRIVILEGE AND CONTEMPTS / Attempts by improper means to influence Members in the performance of their duties / Intimidation etc. of Members / CASES INVOLVING LETTERS WRITTEN BY MEMBERS

Database

House Practice

Date

01-05-2005

Source

House of Reps

Parl No.

41

Chapter

Parliamentary privilege

Chapter No.

Chapter 19

Page

733

Section No.

 

System Id

procedural/practcer/chapter19.47.doc


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 / Attempts by improper means to influence Members in the performance of their duties / Intimidation etc. of Members / CASES INVOLVING LETTERS WRITTEN BY MEMBERS



Download WordDownload Word

House of Representatives                                Ch 19                                                 p 733

 

Parliamentary privilege / ACTS CONSTITUTING BREACHES OF PRIVILEGE AND CONTEMPTS / Attempts by improper means to influence Members in the performance of their duties / Intimidation etc. of Members

 

Cases involving letters written by Members

In the Nugent Case (1992) and the Sciacca Case (1994) the Committee of Privileges considered complaints about actions or threatened actions to sue Members on account of statements made in letters to Ministers. The substance of the Members’ complaints was that they had been subject to improper interference in the performance of their duties as Members. In the case of Mr Nugent, the committee found that the terms of the letter containing the threat and the circumstances of its receipt had a tendency to impair Mr Nugent’s independence in the performance of his duties, although it did not find that a contempt had been committed. 1 The House subsequently resolved that the persons responsible should be required to apologise 2 and they did so. 3 In the case of Mr Sciacca, the committee found that although Mr Sciacca had felt constrained, there was no evidence of an attempt to interfere improperly in the performance of his duties and a finding of contempt should not be made. 4



PP 118 (1992).



VP 1990-92/1487, 1540, 1551.



VP 1990-92/1633.



PP 78 (1994).