The three former MPs and peer charged with criminal offences related to their expenses claims will not be able to use parliamentary privilege to avoid prosecution, a judge has ruled.
Former Labour MPs Elliot Morley, David Chaytor, Jim Devine and
Tory peer Lord Hanningfield had argued that they should be dealt with by Parliament, not the courts.
In a ruling today Justice Saunders said he could see "no logical, practical or moral justification" for a claim for expenses being covered by privilege.
"In my judgment, the conduct alleged against these defendants is not covered by Parliamentary privilege and is triable in the Crown Court.
"Unless this decision is reversed on appeal, it clears the way for what most people accused of criminal behaviour would wish for: a fair trial before an impartial jury."
Under parliamentary privilege, which is asserted by the Speaker at the start of each new parliament, proceedings in parliament cannot be impeached or questioned in the courts and MPs cannot be sued or prosecuted for anything they say or do in the House or a committee.
However, the protection of privilege applies only to "proceedings" in Parliament.
The three ex-MPs stand accused of theft by false accounting under section 17 of the Theft Act 1968, a crime that carries a maximum penalty of seven years imprisonment.
While Lord Hanningfield is accused of issuing "numerous claims" for overnight expenses for staying in London, when records appear to show he was driven home and did not sleep in the capital.
All four deny the charges against them.
The new coalition government is set to publish a draft Parliamentary Privilege Bill clarify the extent to which MP's can use parliamentary privilege to defend themselves from wrongdoing.
