Analysis: Liam Lawlor's temporary release from Mountjoy had little to do with his position as a TD, writes Carol Coulter, Legal Affairs Correspondent
In securing his release from prison to defend himself in the Dáil debate on his continuation as a deputy, Mr Liam Lawlor was being treated no better and no worse than hundreds of imprisoned people who are brought to court every week. They may be in prison on remand, or serving existing sentences, but they are entitled to come to court, or have their representatives attend on their behalf, to defend themselves.
Mr Lawlor differed from them in two respects: he was in prison for civil contempt of court, not on a criminal conviction, nor was he on remand facing a criminal charge; he was also facing accusations, not in a court, but before his peers in Dáil Éireann. As such he could only represent himself personally, he could not send a legal representative into the Dáil chamber.
But the fundamental principle of the right of a citizen to defend his or her reputation, or to defend him or herself against a criminal charge, applies to Mr Lawlor as much as it applies to everyone who has to appear before a court or tribunal. This was made clear by Mr Justice Finnegan, President of the High Court, who granted the application.
According to barrister Mr Noel Whelan, author of the book Politics, Elections and the Law, there are instances where people are released from prison to attend non-judicial tribunals as well as court to defend themselves.
While it is unprecedented that a TD came from prison to the Dáil to defend his reputation, an accusation need not be of a criminal nature for a person to be able to invoke his right to defend himself.
If prisoners are brought from prison to attend a court hearing they are escorted in prison transport, as was Mr Lawlor to Leinster House.
There are also instances where people are released from prison temporarily on other grounds, usually compassionate.
The procedure then, as now, is that the court directs the governor of Mountjoy prison to release the prisoner for a specific time and a specific purpose, and detailed arrangements are put in place.
What marked Mr Lawlor's release as unusual yesterday, apart from the fact that the accusations he faced were in Dáil Éireann rather than a court, were the restrictions placed upon him. He was not allowed to "disport himself" around the facilities of Leinster House, he was allowed only the minimum access to telephones and secretarial assistance necessary to defend his reputation. It was even specified that if he dallied between the ending of the debate and the gatehouse it would be taken as serious contempt.
Mr Justice Finnegan also made the point that, as a TD, Mr Lawlor was in a unique position in that he represented constituents. It may be, he said, that the public interest would require his release for a particular purpose.
But this was a hypothetical issue. Mr Lawlor was not representing his constituents in the Dáil yesterday, he was defending himself. In so doing he was exercising the right of every citizen.