Parliamentary privilege and prosecution of MPs for false expenses claims (R v Chaytor)

In R v Chaytor [2010] UKSC 52 the Supreme Court held that article 9 is directed principally at freedom of speech and debate in the Houses and their committees, where the core or essential business of Parliament takes place. To decide whether actions outside the chamber are protected because of their connection to proceedings, the court considers the nature of that connection and whether removing privilege would adversely affect Parliament's core business. Scrutiny of expenses claims by the criminal courts would not inhibit debate or freedom of speech; it would inhibit only the making of dishonest claims. Submitting claims is an incident of the administration of Parliament, not part of proceedings in Parliament, so article 9 does not apply. The court also held that exclusive cognisance posed no bar to the Crown Court's jurisdiction. Gareth's prosecution may therefore proceed in the ordinary way.

Why A is wrong: Article 9 protects 'proceedings in Parliament', not every act of a Member; expenses claims are administrative, not proceedings.

Why B is wrong: No waiver is needed, because article 9 does not attach to expenses claims in the first place.

Why C is wrong: There is no requirement for a prior parliamentary finding; the criminal courts have jurisdiction in the ordinary way.

Why D is wrong: Chaytor held that neither article 9 nor the exclusive cognisance of the House barred the Crown Court's jurisdiction.