4 parliamentary privileged not allowed parliamentary privilege ?

[olddutch]

"Three MPs and peer to face trial as privilege claim dismissed - Three former Labour MPs and a Conservative peer are to face criminal trials for alleged expenses fraud after a judge threw out their attempts to claim parliamentary privilege.

Mr Justice Saunders rejected their application, saying there was 'no logical, practical, moral or legal justification' for expenses claims being covered by privilege. Elliot Morley, David Chaytor, Jim Devine and Lord Hanningfield had argued that they could not be tried in court because of a 300-year-old law exempting MPs and Lords from prosecution over proceedings in parliament. But Mr Justice Saunders rejected their application, saying there was "no logical, practical, moral or legal justification" for expenses claims being covered by privilege.

However, the four men have announced they will appeal against the decision, meaning the Taxpayer will face a bill running into six figures for another hearing."

Do you think that these 4 MPs will in fact eventually:-

1) face trial at all ?
2) be convicted of fraud ?
3) serve an actual prison sentence ?
4) pay the legal costs for this sorry mess ?

[tara20]

1) Yes
2) Maybe
3) No
4) Highly unlikely - unless they can put it on expenses!!

[olddutch]

I'd like to see a yes yes yes yes outcome but wouldnt be at all surprised by a no no no no !

[MarkRae]

1) Yes
2) Yes, if they're actually guilty of it
3) Highly unlikely
4) Yes, if they're found guilty

[sandyRoe]

Yes
Yes
No
No

[jake-the-peg]

UKIP MEPs Ashley Mote and Tom Wise have been found guilty of Benefit Fraud and deception charges respectively

Mote got 9 months and Wise got two years

I see no reason to expect different outcomes if any of these are found guilty

[OrcadianOil]

So why hasn't David Laws also been added to this list? Some of these are accused in relation to lesser amounts of public money than the £40k alleged to have been filched by the Right Hon Member for Yeovil.

[jake-the-peg]

I guess that's a matter of legal nicities - remember we're hearing the circumstances through the lens of the media.

If you want a good answer to that someone in Law might be able to explain the difference

[R1Geezer]

I hope so for all of those. PP is intended to allow MP's to speak their mind without fear of libel/slander laws not so they can rook he public with dodgy exes.

[modeller]

600 of them rooked us by using the rules they had made . These 4 went even further they lied and falsified their claims and hopefully will pay the price . 1.Yes 2.Yes
3. Doubtful 4. Not in full.

David Law should be charged but so should many of the others.