FORMER Essex County Council leader Lord Hanningfield has been acquitted of submitting false expenses claims after a judge ruled it was not a criminal matter.

The former Tory peer, 75, was accused of claiming about £3,300 in allowances from the House of Lords, which he was not entitled to, in July 2013.

He had been due to stand trial at Southwark Crown Court, in London, this week, but the prosecution offered no evidence against him.

Judge Alistair McCreath ruled that the main issue in the case, whether Lord Hanningfield was carrying out parliamentary work or not, does not fall under the jurisdiction of the criminal courts.

Hanningfield, of West Hanningfield, was formally found not guilty of false accounting.

Prosecutor Patrick Gibbs QC confirmed he would offer no evidence after Parliament requested "exclusive cognisance over the meaning of parliamentary work".

He said: "The courts and Parliament strive to respect each other's role and courts are careful not to interfere with the workings of Parliament."

Judge McCreath said: "The daily allowance is payable to the House of Lords provided they have spent time during the course of the day engaged in what is described as parliamentary work."

The judge said Parliament intervened in the matter "relatively late on Friday".

He added: "In other words Parliament was saying 'It is a matter for us as Parliament to make that determination, not for the criminal court'.

"Parliament having made that decision means that the prosecution are not in a position to invite the jury to consider the question of what is parliamentary work, let alone make a determination of it."

A national newspaper investigation alleged Lord Hanningfield claimed the £300 daily rate for peers on 11 occasions in July 2013, despite remaining at Parliament for only a matter of minutes each time.

The peer was previously given a nine-month prison sentence in 2011 after being found guilty of six counts of false accounting, after it was ruled he had fraudulently claimed £14,000 in travel and accommodation costs.

A House of Lords spokesman said the judge decided to halt the trial.

He said: "In 2014, the House of Lords found that Lord Hanningfield broke its rules and imposed the maximum penalty available at the time - suspension for the rest of the Parliament in which the breach of its rules occurred.

"He was suspended for breaching the House of Lords' code of conduct by claiming allowances for attending the House over 11 days when he undertook no parliamentary work. He was also required to repay the public money wrongly claimed from the House.

"The decision to halt Lord Hanningfield's trial today was made by the judge.

"Parliamentary privilege was raised by the defence with the court towards the end of last year, but the House of Lords administration was not told about that application or of the court's ruling on it.

"If it had been, a submission in similar terms would have been made at the time.

"The House of Lords administration sought to assist the court by making written submissions last week on the question of whether parliamentary privilege might apply to aspects of the trial, including the question of what did or did not amount to 'parliamentary work', following the receipt of papers outlining the nature of the prosecution case.

"The submission explicitly stated that this did not mean that the trial should not proceed.

"In giving his ruling on a CPS request to adjourn the trial, Judge Alistair McCreath confirmed that the issue of whether Lord Hanningfield was carrying out parliamentary work does not fall under the jurisdiction of the criminal justice system."