It's a case that has sharply divided opinion - but not always with an accurate rendering of the facts. So we hope this will clear up a few misconceptions about A v UK - the case of the woman an MP branded a 'neighbour from hell'

What is this case about?
(extract from European Court summary)
"During a parliamentary debate on municipal housing policy in July 1996, A.'s Member of Parliament named her, gave her precise address and made derogatory remarks about the behaviour of both her and her children. He mentioned verbal abuse, truancy, vandalism and drug activity and called the family the "neighbours from hell", a phrase which was subsequently quoted in local and national
newspapers.

None of the allegations referred to by her MP had ever been substantiated or upheld by the investigating authorities and that many of them came from neighbours motivated by racism and spite. Following the MP's speech and the ensuing adverse publicity, she received racist hate-mail. The responsible housing association was advised that she and her children should be moved as a matter of urgency three weeks after the speech was given. They were eventually re-housed in October 1996 and the children were obliged to change schools.

The MP's statement was protected by absolute parliamentary privilege under Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689".

Liberty took on A's case and represented her in the European Court of Human Rights, choosing to use Andrew Nicol QC, an expert in freedom of expression, a member of Doughty Chambers and co-author (with Geoffrey Robertson QC) of the definitive text book "Media law". We felt that MPs should not use Parliamentary Privilege to pick on ordinary defenceless citizens in order to make political points, particularly when the people themselves have no way of seeking redress if the accusations made turn out to be incorrect.
Suggestions that Liberty is somehow seeking to stifle political debate and free speech in the Houses of Parliament ignore the basic tenets of this case. This is not a case that could have any repercussions for MPs exposing the wrongdoing of powerful figures or corporations - a role that some of our most notable backbench MPs, in particular, have fulfilled with admirable courage and distinction. It doesn't, as one former MP has suggested, mean they face ruin before the libel courts - because there is no suggestion that the libel courts are the answer here.

They're not the answer: Parliament itself is. This case is absolutely not about preventing legitimate debate on necessary issues which are of concern to the public. It is about is ensuring that our elected representatives fairly and properly represent all members of our community and not only those who have voted for them or are likely to vote for them in the future. The House itself should ensure that this happens.

On this occasion an elected member of the House initiated a parliamentary debate on a perfectly proper issue - housing practices of social landlords/ local authorities. What in our view he did inappropriately was to give personal details about one particular social landlord tenant whom he had received complaints about from his constituents.

At no point prior to his speech did he seek to obtain confirmation of the truth of the allegations made to him from the tenant or even notify the tenant of the complaints in order that she could respond. Instead the MP sought wide publicity for his speech and then proceeded to provide details of her and her family that placed them all in serious danger of their health and life. As a direct consequence of the disclosures made by the MP, the tenant and her young family had to be re-housed after receiving hate mail and racist death threats. No other person was named in the speech.

The omission of this tenant's name and address would not have detracted from the substance or thrust of the MP's speech in any way.

The 1689 Bill of Rights protects parliamentary speech from being " impeached or questioned in any court or place out of parliament".

Liberty believes that it is not detrimental to the freedom of political speech to have internal Parliamentary procedures that provide a " real " and accessible remedy to those outside the Houses who wish to seek a rebuttal or retraction of disparaging and dangerous remarks made about them on the floor of either House.

In fact, Parliament itself believes that this is possible through at least three avenues.
· Approaching your MP with a view to tabling an Early Day Motion or an Amendment
· Petitioning the House through a Member
· Approaching the Member who made the allegation to persuade him/her that the allegations were unfounded and warrant retraction

The above remedies are recognised in the First Report from the Select Committee on Procedure ( paragraph 65). The Report recognises that there is a convention that one Member does not take up a case brought by another's constituent, particularly if the MP was the source of the complaint, but the Select Committee believes the House would not expect rigid adherence to this in such circumstances ( paragraph 66).

In fact, however, there is rigid adherence to this Convention and apart from there being little advertisement of the alleged protections available it appears to be virtually impossible for a member of the public to enjoy any of the above mentioned protections. The reality is that this facility is not open to ordinary members of the public - and it should be.

There are any number of internal mechanisms that can be introduced and utilised to ensure that complaints from constituents are not sensationalised or publicly advertised on the floor of the House, to the detriment of private individuals who may be personally and unnecessarily damaged by the exposure in either House without any benefit to the wider public.

Consider for example the complaints of some constituents to their MP that they believed a young man moving into social housing in their neighbourhood to be one of the murderers of Jamie Bulger ( Thompson or Venables), before any injunction on revealing their identity had been obtained.

If the MP decided he could not get a straight answer as to the true identity of the new tenant from the landlord and sought instead to raise the matter in Parliamentary debate - detailing, as for A, the tenant's assumed identity and address - the damage to the individual and the public in that area would already be complete without the need to verify the true identity of the individual. The need to avoid this kind of exposure was clearly accepted by the court when deciding to injunct the whole world against disclosure of the boy's identities, in order to avoid retribution.

Once again, this isn't an argument for exposing crusading MPs to the threat of libel courts. But it is about parliament having realistic procedures to consider complaints against MPs internally. It's about ensuring parliamentary privilege, so valuable for so many reasons, is not recklessly abused without any opportunity for innocent victims to respond and seek correction.

This case will not - cannot, in the terms being considered by the Court - do the damage to Parliamentary privilege that some alarmist reports have suggested. It can protect Parliament and people from the damage that utterly unanswerable abuse of this privilege could cause.