The Murdoch hearings: What the rules say

Much print has been expended on what powers the culture, media and sport committee have, and what the witnesses may or may not be allowed to say - but what are the rules?

Much print has been expended on what powers the culture, media and sport select committee have, and what the witnesses may or may not be allowed to say when they question Rupert Murdoch, James Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks this afternoon – but what exactly are the rules?

The “Guide for witnesses giving written or oral evidence to a House of Commons select committee” (pdf) states:

“If you know that matters which may arise during oral evidence are currently before a court of law, or court proceedings are imminent. If you anticipate such issues arising, you should discuss with the clerk of the committee how this might affect the oral evidence you can give.”

However, with particular regard to Ms Brooks, arrested on Sunday and bailed until October, the guidelines (pdf) state:

“Witnesses to select committees enjoy absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give, whether written or oral, provided that it is formally accepted as such by the Committee. Absolute privilege protects freedom of speech in parliamentary proceedings; it is enshrined in statutory form in Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689, which prohibits proceedings in Parliament from being called in question in any court.

“In practical terms this means that select committee witnesses are immune from civil or criminal proceedings founded upon that evidence; nor can their evidence be relied upon in civil or criminal proceedings against any other person.”

With respect to fears all three will ‘lawyer up’, and amidst speculation they will be made to swear on oath to tell ‘the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth’, the guidelines (pdf) add:

“When hearing oral evidence, committees have the power to require witnesses to answer questions. In practice, evidence-taking before committees is conducted with a degree of informality and such powers are seldom used. A committee also has power to take evidence on oath. This rarely happens but, if the procedure is used, witnesses are liable to the laws of perjury.”

And on privilege, the “Parliamentary privilege and qualified privilege” guidelines (pdf) confirm:

“There is no doubt that matters that are contained in speech in the House or in a Committee are subject to absolute privilege under Article 9 and so, for that matter, are matters contained in House of Commons papers.”

Furthermore, on the rights of the witnesses, “The Departmental Select Committee System” research paper (pdf) says witnesses can “expect some protection from Parliament”.

It’s not all grim for Rupert, James and Rebekah, however; the witness guide (pdf) adds:

“The House will cover reasonable expenses related to a witness attending a committee hearing. Committee staff are able to offer advice on getting to the evidence session and are in a position to confirm what travel and other expenses can be met by the House. In some circumstances committees can book and pay for tickets on behalf of a witness in advance of a hearing.”

Left Foot Forward will have reaction to the hearings later this afternoon. In the meantime, enjoy!

3 Responses to “The Murdoch hearings: What the rules say”

  1. David C Thomas

    RT @leftfootfwd: The Murdoch hearings: What the rules say

  2. Evan Price

    Mr Das appears to have failed to include reference to the fact that in relation to matters that are before or that are likely to come before the courts ‘imminently’ witnesses are advised to avoid saying anything…

    The privileges that he refers to are privileges against prosecution or litigation for things said in Parliament and while it is correct to say that what is said in Parliament cannot be used as evidence in another court, the problem of protection from self-incrimination and the need for Parliament not to threaten proceedings in court (actual or anticipated) is a real need that is recognised by Parliamentary procedure.

    So, the rules relating to what is called ‘sub judice’ still apply as do rather less clear rules relating to ‘commity’ between ‘the Court of Parliament’ and the other Courts.

  3. Capo di tutti capi plays dumb when quizzed about Murdoch mafia’s “omerta” | Left Foot Forward

    […] The Murdoch hearings: What the rules say – Shamik Das, July 19th […]

Comments are closed.