UK: acca 'nisciuno is cleft

Or as the famous Neapolitan concept has been translated by the Supreme Court of London with equal incisiveness, but with more elegance. Last month, the former Labour MP David Chaytor pleaded guilty before the tribunal that would judge, a move dictated by the knowledge that the accusation of fraud in requests for reimbursement of expenses to Parliament could lead to a sentence of up to seven years.

Indeed, as expected, the admission of guilt has yielded a generous discount on the accused, that he would manage with only 18 months in prison. The sentence, which dates back a few days ago, it would have been delivered many months before, if Chaytor and his colleagues, perhaps inspired by the glorious struggles waged across the Channel, on the Continent, for the independence of parliament and the serenity of the rulers , had not decided to sell life dearly, fighting for more than a year to support their right not to stand trial in regular courts, and instead be judged by the respective Houses of belonging, as protected by Parliamentary privilege.

" Two sets of proceedings had already rejected the hypothesis that a common crime, the type under consideration, could be considered by Parliament and not in court. However, the Court of Appeals, acknowledging that he had been raised a point of law of general interest, had given permission to seek an interpretation of the Supreme Court in the form of an answer to the question: "Can the ordinary court process to submit a Parliament in relation to allegations of dishonest claims for reimbursement of expenses related to its function, or the court has no jurisdiction under Article 9 of the Bill of Rights of 1688 and / or under the exclusive jurisdiction of Parliament? "The Supreme Court, despite the efforts of lawyers Chaytor and his companions, to demonstrate the opposite, he said yes, he can.

Then, in due time, on December 1 last year, unveiled his motives, and indulge in some tasty little dig and some comments on the thesis defense, who feared threats to obscure the essential functions of Parliament, if an ordinary court had to consider the expense claims of MPs. The Court first considered the limits of the immunity provided by the Bill of Rights (Art.

9: "The freedom of speech and debate or the activities of Parliament may not be the subject of allegations or claims in any other court or place out of Parliament") and, since they depend on the interpretation of the term " proceedings in Parlyament "(activities of Parliament), has addressed the question of who is entitled to decide which behaviors are defined as follows, concluding that the decision should be entrusted to the courts and not the houses.

Even if the courts, in cases of this nature, place and care about the opinion of Parliament. Finally, after the quote and comment on the case law on Article 9 and the immunity provided by the "exclusive cognisance (exclusive jurisdiction) of the Parliament, the Court concluded that the principle advocated is to ensure freedom of speech in Parliament and in parliamentary committees, in the form of speeches and debates, and that this must be considered how and where it performs the essential function of Parliament.

To do so would fall under the Parliamentary proceedings "also acts done outside the House, but that can be connected to them, you must consider the nature of that connection, and predict their likely negative impact on the performance of essential functions Parliament. "By adopting this approach - said the Supreme Court - the presentation of documents to apply for reimbursement of expenses does not qualify as an act protected by immunity.

An examination of expense accounts by ordinary courts, outside Parliament, will not have any negative impact on the performance of essential functions of Parliament. " "Certainly the investigation of the ordinary court did not inhibit any of the various activities of members of Parliament relating in one way or another, the execution of their duties as MPs.

The only thing that will prevent - the Supreme Court concluded with cruel and British sense of humor - is the presentation of expense dishonest. " Even our Constitutional Court, in these days, is to assess what might inhibit the rejection of a sneaky on such failure to appear in court, designed to ensure the "smooth running" of the activities' of government.

In this case, by Italians, it is hoped an answer as realistic, dignified and humorous.

• You: ACCA accountancy symposium (27/11/2010)
• ACCA calls for Government to 'Think small first' (21/07/2010)
• You: Investment, business confidence suffer setback (13/11/2010)
• China Recycling Energy Corporation Appoints Industry Veteran, David Chong, as New Chief Financial Officer (06/01/2011)
• Book Review: AC/DC: The Ultimate Illustrated History by Phil Sutcliffe (21/11/2010)