Published on 17 October 2022

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 28540/20 N.A. against the United Kingdom lodged on 9 July 2020 communicated on 27 September 2022

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The applicant was created a life peer in 1998. At the same time, he became a member of the House of Lords, being the upper house of the United Kingdom Parliament.

In or around 2020, in response to a complaint of sexual misconduct, the House of Lords Commissioner for Standards (“the Commissioner”) carried out an investigation into the applicant’s behaviour. Although the Commissioner did not consider that the more serious allegations were made out, she nevertheless concluded that the applicant had breached the House of Lords Code of Conduct by failing to act on his personal honour, and recommended his expulsion from the House of Lords. The applicant appealed unsuccessfully to the Conduct Committee of the House of Lords (“the Conduct Committee”).

The applicant resigned before any action was taken to expel him from the House of Lords.

He complains that the Commissioner’s report had devastating consequences for his private and family life, and that the process for investigating and punishing breaches of the House of Lords’ Code of Conduct did not afford due respect to the interests safeguarded under Article 8 of the Convention. In particular, he complains that he had no right to cross-examine the complainant, even though the allegations were serious and the complainant’s credibility was in issue. He also alleges that on account of “parliamentary privilege” the courts had neither appellate nor supervisory jurisdiction in respect of the Commissioner’s investigation.

Invoking Article 8, read together with Article 14 of the Convention, he alleges that only members of the House of Lords and Members of Parliament were denied a remedy in a court or tribunal in the event of their being accused of sexual misconduct.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Is Article 8 of the Convention applicable? If so, has it been violated?

2. Has the applicant been treated differently from other persons in an analogous or relevantly similar situation in the enjoyment of this Convention rights due to his “other status”, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 8? If so, was there an objective and reasonable justification for that difference in treatment, namely did it pursue a legitimate aim and was there a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised?