The Dublin West TD, Mr Liam Lawlor, was freed from prison yesterday by High Court order to participate in a Dáil debate on a motion calling for his resignation. The order for his release was issued minutes before the Dáil was due to sit.
The last-minute application for the TD's temporary freedom was made by Mr John Trainor SC who told the President of the High Court, Mr Justice Finnegan, that his client wished to attend the debate.
The judge decided he could hear the application without the attendance of lawyers for the Flood tribunal, who had brought the High Court proceedings which led to Mr Lawlor's imprisonment. Mr Justice Smyth, who has jailed Mr Lawlor on three occasions, was not available to hear yesterday's application.
After hearing submissions by Mr Trainor, the judge directed the governor of Mountjoy prison to make arrangements to have Mr Lawlor taken without delay to the entrance to Leinster House and taken back from the entrance to Leinster House to the prison at the conclusion of the debate and vote on the motion.
In the event of the debate and vote not being determined yesterday, Mr Lawlor should be returned to prison and again taken to the Dáil to attend in a similar manner until the conclusion of the debate and vote, the judge said.
Mr Justice Finnegan said he would consider it a further and very serious contempt of the concession which the court was giving to Mr Lawlor if he should delay for any period more than was necessary in returning from the Dáil chamber to the gatehouse.
The court would consider it an abuse of the concession if Mr Lawlor should see fit while in Leinster House to avail of anything other than the necessary facilities there in terms of office space, telephone and even, perhaps, secretarial services.
In particular, Mr Justice Finnegan said, Mr Lawlor should not "disport" himself about the facilities of Leinster House such as the bar or restaurant.
Any abuse or disregard of the conditions would be seen as a serious contempt.
Explaining his decision to free the TD for the debate, the judge said Mr Lawlor was in prison but not as an ordinary member of the prison population.
He was not a convicted person but was in prison for procedural contempt, which was not to say such contempt was not a matter of the utmost seriousness. Committal to prison for contempt could be coercive, to compel a person to adopt a particular course of action or punitive for something a person had done or failed to do. In this case, it was punitive as Mr Lawlor failed to comply with court orders.
In the circumstances the court's discretion to deal with the contemptor was a matter between the court and Mr Lawlor and was not one for other parties to the proceedings, Mr Justice Finnegan said. The court could deal with the application in the absence of representation from the tribunal.
The judge said he had to have regard to the fact that Mr Lawlor was an elected representative. His constitutuents might well claim to be entitled to have him represent them so long as he remained a representative.
A situation might arise where his release from prison for some particular purpose would be said to be in the public interest.
It seemed Mr Lawlor's reputation was most likely to be subjected to attack in the course of the motion. It was every citizen's right to be afforded the opportunity to vindicate their reputation and name, whenever it was under such attack.
If at all possible, Mr Lawlor should be afforded the opportunity of so doing. The judge said he was satisfied he should afford Mr Lawlor that opportunity.
In doing so, the judge stressed he was not granting Mr Lawlor any special privilege beyond that of any other citizen of the State. This was particularly so when one had regard to the fact that Mr Lawlor was not a criminal and, so far as the judge knew, had not been charged with any criminal offence.
It would be wrong for the court to anticipate the outcome of any criminal proceedings should they be eventually instituted against Mr Lawlor and in that way treat him as a criminal.