The case is the first criminal prosecution stemming from a wider scandal that erupted last year over parliamentary expenses, provoking public anger at a time of economic retrenchment.
Judge Justice Saunders said he could see no “logical, practical or moral justification” for the argument put by the three former Labour party members of parliament (MPs) and a Conservative member of the upper House of Lords.
The men had submitted that the right of parliamentary privilege — which protects lawmakers’ freedom of speech — also extended to rules controlling their expenses, meaning that only Parliament could take action against them.
They had cited the Bill of Rights 1689 which states that “freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any place or court outside Parliament.”
The judge said he accepted that the processing of the expenses was part of the workings of parliament, but that there was no reason to extend parliamentary privilege to expense claims.
“There has to be a line drawn and it has to be drawn somewhere,” he told Southwark Crown Court in central London, the Press Association reported.
“I can see no logical, practical or moral justification for a claim for expenses being covered by privilege; and I can see no legal justification for it either.
“In my judgment, the conduct alleged against these defendants is not covered by parliamentary privilege and is triable in the Crown Court,” he said.
“The principle that all men are equal before the law is an important one and should be observed unless there is good reason why it should not apply.”
The four accused are former MPs Elliot Morley, David Chaytor and Jim Devine, and Paul White, known as Lord Hanningfield.
All deny the charges, which center on dishonest expense claims backed up in some cases by false invoices. They face a maximum sentence of seven years in jail. The judge granted all four leave to appeal his ruling.
