header-logo header-logo

Parliamentary privilege & the Strasbourg court

30 May 2025 / Neil Parpworth
Issue: 8118 / Categories: Features , Human rights , Constitutional law , Contempt , EU
printer mail-detail
220713
Neil Parpworth analyses Green v UK, in which the European Court of Human Rights upheld parliamentarians’ protection
  • An examination of the decision in Green v UK [2025] ECHR 91, in which the European Court of Human Rights scrutinised Lord Hain’s naming of Philip Green under parliamentary privilege, in spite of a court injunction.
  • The court upheld the UK’s protection of parliamentary speech, ruling that requiring further controls would undermine the separation of powers and was not supported by European consensus.
  • However, the court acknowledged the seriousness of the case and recommended regular review.

Approximately six and a half years ago, at the conclusion of a debate on an unrelated issue, the former cabinet minister and Labour life peer Lord Peter Hain made a short personal statement in the House of Lords:

‘My Lords, having been contacted by someone intimately involved in the case of a powerful businessman using non-disclosure agreements and substantial payments to conceal the truth about serious and repeated sexual harassment, racist abuse and

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The dangers of uncritical artificial intelligence (AI) use in legal practice are no longer hypothetical. In this week's NLJ, Dr Charanjit Singh of Holborn Chambers examines cases where lawyers relied on ‘hallucinated’ citations — entirely fictitious authorities generated by AI tools
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
back-to-top-scroll