House can jail, expel MPs

THE Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) may have advised the police not to press charges against Member of Parliament for Diego Martin West, Dr Keith Rowley arising out of the September 15, tea room brawl with Fyzabad MP Chandresh Sharma. But if Rowley is found guilty by the Privileges Committee of Parliament, the House has several options on how to deal with the Diego Martin West MP. They range from reprimand and admonition to a jail sentence of not more than six months. The same options are available to the House in dealing with Sharma. DPP Geofrey Henderson in a memorandum dated November 12, 2004 advised Commissioner of Police, Trevor Paul of his decision not to give consent to charge Rowley, stating that he believed that Parliament had the ability to regulate its own affairs. Henderson cited several public interest factors against prosecution to support his decision.

These included that the court was likely to impose a nominal penalty, the loss of harm was minor and the result of a single incident and the availability and efficacy of an alternative to prosecution. However, according to Erskine May’s Parliament Practice Chapter 10 “Complaints of breach of privilege or contempt,” page 137, “if the report is to the effect that no breach of privilege has been committed, no further proceedings are usually taken in reference to the report, but if the committee reports that a serious breach of privilege has been committed, the House will take action upon it.” It states further that sometimes the “House will order the person incriminated to attend the House, in order to hear anything he may say in extenuation or mitigation, before coming to substantial judgment on the decision of the committee.”

As for the punishment, May’s at Chapter 8, “Penal jurisdiction of both Houses,” says “the power to fine or imprison for contempt belongs at common law to all courts of record. The Lords are a court of record, and as such have power not only to imprison but to impose fines. “They also imprison for a fixed time, and order security to be given for good conduct.” It states further that the person can be committed to a state prison, but the Speaker must issue two warrants, “one to the Serjeant requiring him to deliver the prisoner into the custody of the keeper of the prison, and the other reciting the judgment or order of the House and requiring the keeper of the prison to receive into his custody the body of the prisoner and safely keep him during the pleasure of the House or until the House make further order in his case.”

In terms of fines, May’s says at page 110 that the House in its capacity as a court “has power to inflict fines, either in substitution for, or in addition, to committal. Where the offence is not so grave, as to warrant the committal of the offender, “he is generally directed to be reprimanded or admonished by the Speaker.” Suspension is also an option for the House as is expulsion. The website www.australianpolitics.com explains that in the matter or reports from Committees of Privileges, that “it has long been recognised that the House has the power to imprison people, and may impose a penalty of imprisonment not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding $5,000.” But the website further adds that when the House imposes a penalty of imprisonment and sets out the particulars of the offence on the warrant, a court can be asked to determine whether the ground for the imprisonment was sufficient in law to amount to contempt.