Page 279 - Law and the Media

Law and the Media
for Questions’ affair (Hamilton v Al-Fayed (1999); Hamilton v Al-Fayed (2000)). As a result, a
Joint Committee was set up to examine the question of Parliamentary privilege. The Joint
Committee’s report concluded that contempt should be defined by statute because the possible
penal sanctions made it important for the elements of contempt and the possible punishments
to be clearly understood. The report also recommended that Parliament’s power to punish those
in contempt of Parliament should be transferred to the court, in order to achieve the clarity of
procedure and judgment that it currently lacks (House of Lords Paper 43–1 (1998–1999)).

However, the recommendations of the Joint Committee have not yet been implemented. It is
only possible to assess what can and cannot be published by reference to previous examples.

Misbehaviour
Conduct that disrupts proceedings, for example shouting or throwing things from the
strangers’ gallery, is punishable as contempt.

Disrupting, obstructing or influencing
This is the broadest category of contempt, and encompasses any conduct that has a tendency
to impede the proper functioning of either House or its members.

In 1957, during the aftermath of the Suez crisis, the Sunday Express and Romford
Recorder published articles that suggested that MPs were gaining improper
advantages in relation to the rationing of petrol. Both editors were summoned to
the House of Commons and reprimanded for contempt.
In 1947, Gerry Allighan MP was expelled from the House of Commons for
contempt after writing an article alleging that members were receiving payments
for passing confidential information about Parliamentary business to journalists. It
subsequently emerged that Allighan himself was one of those who had been
‘leaking’ material.
In 1957, the Sunday Graphic, incensed at a Parliamentary question tabled by
Arthur Lewis MP which suggested that money raised for the Hungarian Relief
Fund should go to help Egyptian victims of the Suez bombing campaign, published
his home telephone number and invited its readers to ring him. It was held to be
a contempt.

Like judges, MPs are nowadays more resilient and accustomed to strident criticism than they
used to be. It is highly unlikely that robust but honest attacks by the media on Parliament or
its Members would now lead to findings of contempt, although action might easily be taken
over reports which appear to be malicious. A Member of Parliament may waive absolute
privilege for the purposes of defamation proceedings (Hamilton v Al-Fayed (1999)).

Either House may consider a report of its proceedings in a newspaper or other publication
to be a breach of its privilege if it is obviously inaccurate or untrue. Because such conduct
may disrupt, obstruct or influence the functioning of Parliament, it may be punishable as
contempt.
242