Re Bristol South-East Parliamentary Election
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Re Bristol South-East Parliamentary Election 1961 | |
|---|---|
.svg) | |
| Court | Election court |
| Citation | [1964] 2 QB 257, [1961] 3 All ER 354 |
| Case history | |
| Related action | Peerage Act 1963 |
| Court membership | |
| Judges sitting | Mr Justice Gorman, Mr Justice McNair |
| Keywords | |
| |
Re Bristol South-East Parliamentary Election ([1964] 2 QB 257, [1961] 3 All ER 354) is a 1961 United Kingdom election court case brought about by an election petition by Malcolm St Clair against Anthony Wedgewood Benn, 2nd Viscount Stansgate (also known as Tony Benn), the winner of the 1961 Bristol South-East by-election where Benn had won the most votes but was disqualified from taking his seat in the House of Commons as he had inherited a hereditary peerage as 2nd Viscount Stansgate.[1] Benn argued that as he had not applied for a writ of summons, he was not a member of the House of Lords and that the voters had the right to choose who they wanted to represent them.[2]
The court made a ruling of undue election because the voters were aware that Benn was legally disqualified from sitting in the House of Commons, their votes had to be counted as being "thrown away" and Malcolm St Clair as the runner-up would take the seat instead.[3]
Anthony Wedgwood Benn had been elected as the MP for Bristol South East since 1950 as a Labour Party candidate. During that time he was heir to the Viscount Stansgate title held by his father William Wedgwood Benn, 1st Viscount Stansgate, which Benn tried several times to renounce his right to. When his father died in 1960, Benn called the Speaker of the House of Commons to inform him of this. The Speaker told Benn that because he was now legally a peer, he was disqualified from sitting and speaking in the House of Commons.[4] A by-election was called and Benn decided to fight it anyway. The Conservative Party candidate, Malcolm St Clair, ran several adverts in local papers telling voters that there was no point in voting for Benn as he was disqualified from sitting in the House of Commons as he was a hereditary peer.[5] Despite this, Benn won the election and went to the door of the House of Commons to take his oath of allegiance. However the doorkeeper of the House had been told by the Speaker to not allow Benn access, specifically authorising the use of force to prevent him entering,[4] because he was not legally allowed in the Commons as a hereditary peer.[4]
St Clair issued an election petition against the results stating that Benn could not take his seat as he was disqualified.[6] The petition was accepted by the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice of England and Wales and the case would be heard by an election court. During the two months preceding the case, Benn along with his sons Stephen and Hilary, and his legal advisor Michael Zander were granted permission by the Speaker to access the House of Commons Library to help with their case.[2]
Court hearing
Against legal advice of the Labour Party's Queen's Counsels, Benn represented himself in pro per during the proceedings.[2] During his opening address, Benn took 22 hours to make it and took 537 questions while doing so.[2] Sir Andrew Clark QC, acting as St Clair's barrister argued in his response that a peer upon succession, regardless of whether they had asked for one or not, was entitled to a writ of summons to the House of Lords which the Crown could not refuse to grant. He argued that merely having that right was grounds for disqualification as being a member of the House of Lords was incompatible with being an MP in the House of Commons.[2]
Benn argued that to expel an elected member of the House of Commons on the grounds that he had the right for a writ of summons, was to punish him for doing something he had not done. He cited that there was no precedent to punish a hereditary peer for refusing a writ of summons and referenced the Garter King of Arms's Register of Lords Spiritual and Temporal, where there were forty instances in 500 years of peers not claiming their right to a writ.[2] Since 1955, if a peer did not reply to the Lord Chancellor in relation to their right, they were deemed to be on a leave of absence and attendance was not expected.[2]