Speaker’s Rulings — Judicial Proceedings—Sub Judice Rule and Notification of Speaker

Last Thursday a member asked that I reflect on a ruling I gave concerning the sub judice rule when ruling a supplementary question to question No. 9 out of order. I have done so and looked more widely at events that led to more general disorder during that question time. The purpose of the sub judice rule is to safeguard the interests of justice. What is before the courts ought not to be discussed in the House from the time a charge is made until the verdict and the sentence is announced. The fact that someone may have pleaded guilty does not alter this. The House is not in the same position as the media. The House has set itself a higher standard, having regard to the constitutional relationship between Parliament and the courts. Furthermore, Standing Order 112(2) now requires a member who intends to refer to a matter before the courts to give written notice to the Speaker in order that the Speaker may consider whether to exercise discretion on these matters. That certainly did not happen last Thursday.

Questions for Oral Answer—Imputations of Corruption