Hearing Denis MacShane's expenses letters in court 'would breach his rights' In one of the letters from Feburary 2010, Mr MacShane admitted he had shown poor judgement and paid back the disputed expenses. He wrote: "I have considered how my actions could be regarded by others, and I could well understand that consideration of just the facts could lead to individuals being highly critical but I did not intend a wrong. In mitigation I can only say that the adequacy of my judgements and the paucity of my administration at the time were very influenced my personal circumstances. Mr Barron told the House of Commons that these letters would probably be no use to the police as they are inadmissible. "If our report raises new material then the police can use it to guide their investigations," he said. Receipts, invoices and claims are not privileged and do not become so simply because they are reproduced in a parliamentary report. It is true that the correspondence between the commissioner and those he investigates could not be used in court proceedings without impeaching and questioning proceedings in Parliament. It is our view that would be a breach of Article 9 of the Bill of Rights but in reality that evidence is likely to be inadmissible anyway. After a three year investigation, the Parliamentary Committee on Standards and Privileges concluded that Mr MacShane had been "writing his own cheque" from taxpayer funds. Between 2004 and 2008, he claimed for research and translation costs to pay the European Policy Institute (EPI). The total amount claimed was £12,900, with nineteen fasified receipts. The watchdog found that Mr MacShane himself controlled the EPI's bank account. MPs yesterday backed a one-year suspension from parliament for Mr MacShane, even though he has already resigned over the scandal. Andrew Lansley, the Leader of the House of Commons, said the decision would show Parliament is willing to condemn members who break the rules. He said: "This was deeply reprehensive conduct [that] was clearly intended to deceive. This will have angered many of our constituents and members of this House alike.