Re Parliamentary Privilege Act 1770 (The Strauss Case) [1958] AC 331
Facts
George Strauss MP wrote to a minister criticising the purchasing practices of the London Electricity Board. An allegation of defamation and threatened legal proceedings prompted questions about parliamentary privilege. The controversy raised both the meaning of the Parliamentary Privilege Act 1770 and the separate issue whether the letter formed part of proceedings in Parliament. An interpretative question was referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Its advice concerned the relationship between the 1770 Act and protection for parliamentary proceedings, rather than determining a damages claim between ordinary opposing litigants.
Legal Issue
Did the Parliamentary Privilege Act 1770 remove protection for speeches and proceedings in Parliament, or concern members' ordinary legal liabilities as individuals?
Held
The Judicial Committee advised that the 1770 Act did not abolish the protection of parliamentary proceedings. Its provisions removing obstacles to litigation against members had to be read in their historical and constitutional context, with a distinction between personal liabilities and conduct within protected proceedings. That interpretation did not itself decide that Strauss's particular letter was a proceeding in Parliament. The House of Commons subsequently resolved that the letter was not such a proceeding. The two questions must remain separate: the survival of the privilege as a matter of statutory interpretation and whether a particular communication falls within its scope. The advice was not a general immunity for anything an MP writes.
⭐ Legal Principle
The Parliamentary Privilege Act 1770 removed procedural protections concerning members' ordinary personal liabilities without abolishing the protection of proceedings in Parliament. Whether a particular letter falls within parliamentary proceedings is a separate question; membership of Parliament alone does not make all correspondence absolutely privileged.
Significance
The Strauss controversy demonstrates the danger of equating parliamentary work with parliamentary proceedings. The Judicial Committee's narrow interpretation preserved the constitutional protection, but did not classify every ministerial letter as protected. The Commons' later decision on Strauss's letter illustrates the distinction. For undergraduate study, separate the existence of privilege, its application to a communication and possible ordinary defamation defences. The year 1770 belongs to the statute's title; the reported judicial advice is from 1958.
Common exam questions about this case
What did the Judicial Committee decide about the 1770 Act?
It interpreted the Act as addressing members' ordinary legal liabilities and the impediments privilege had created for those actions. It did not read the legislation as abolishing protection for parliamentary proceedings. That statutory interpretation was distinct from deciding whether the particular letter was itself a protected proceeding.
Was Strauss's letter ultimately treated as a parliamentary proceeding?
The House of Commons later resolved that it was not. That should not be confused with the Judicial Committee's conclusion that protection for genuine parliamentary proceedings survived the 1770 Act. The controversy therefore requires separate treatment of the legal privilege and the classification of the particular communication.
Does an MP's public role make all letters absolutely privileged?
No. Working as an MP and participating in proceedings in Parliament are not identical categories. A letter may require analysis of its connection with parliamentary proceedings and any ordinary defamation defence. The Strauss controversy cannot support a blanket claim that correspondence with ministers is automatically protected by article 9.