Mr Liam Lawlor, the independent Dublin West TD, has been saved from serving a week in prison from Wednesday next for contempt of court.
The Supreme Court yesterday granted Mr Lawlor a stay on the seven-day sentence until his appeal against the High Court order of Mr Justice Thomas Smyth is heard in the new law term which begins in October.
On July 31st, Judge Smyth had ordered Mr Lawlor, who has already served a week in prison, to a second seven-day term in Mountjoy. He had also ordered him to pay a £5,000 fine as well as legal costs of about £100,000 and refused him a stay in order to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Yesterday, the Supreme Court granted him leave to appeal all three orders and adjourned the matter for mention in October.
Last January, Mr Lawlor served seven days in prison and was fined £10,000 with costs of nearly £200,000 after Judge Smyth had found him in contempt for not complying with a High Court order relating to the discovery of documents to the Flood tribunal.
At the time Judge Smyth imposed a three-month sentence but suspended all but seven days of it on condition Mr Lawlor provided the tribunal with further documentation.
Mr Lawlor's latest imprisonment, fine and costs order followed a complaint from the tribunal that he had still failed to comply with his obligations to it.
Following legal submissions yesterday by Mr John Trainor SC for the Lucan-based TD, and Mr Paul Gardiner SC for the tribunal, Ms Justice Denham, said the court was of the opinion Mr Lawlor had made an arguable case for appeal.
She said it was clear the entire documentation involved was voluminous and it would be improper for the Supreme Court to express a view as to the outcome of an appeal.
"The fact is that if a stay is not granted the defendant will serve a term of imprisonment before his appeal is heard," she said.
"There is then the possible consequence that he will have served a term of imprisonment in circumstances where there is an arguable case that his appeal may succeed."
She said it was clear the work of the tribunal would not be impeded by a stay and on balance the justice of the case required that a stay be granted until the hearing of the appeal or further order of the court.
Mr Trainor had argued that Mr Lawlor had fully and sufficiently complied with the discovery obligations.
Mr Trainor told Ms Justice Denham, Mr Justice Murphy and Mr Justice Murray it would be argued the penalties imposed by Mr Justice Smyth were disproportionate, unreasonable and excessively harsh.