Four British lawmakers told a judge they will use a 320-year-old law as a defence against prosecution over allegations they dishonestly claimed parliamentary expenses.
In their first court appearance since being charged in a scandal that has rocked the British political establishment, the parliamentarians said they will argue their cases should not be tried by a jury.
Instead, they will insist that they should be dealt with by authorities in the House of Commons, Britain's lower house of Parliament, arguing they are protected by parliamentary privilege.
All four told the London court they would plead not guilty to fiddling their expenses. Their case was moved to a higher court where they will appear later this month.
The accused include three lawmakers from the ruling Labour party who are members of the elected House of Commons - David Chaytor, Elliot Morley and Jim Devine.
The fourth facing charges over the case is a Conservative member of the unelected House of Lords, Paul White.
If found guilty, they face a maximum of seven years in prison.
Lawyer Julian Knowles, representing the Labour lawmakers, said they would argue they were protected by parliamentary privilege as set out in the 1689 Bill of Rights.
This states that only Parliament has the authority to deal with proceedings in the legislature.
"My clients should not be understood as saying that they are above the law - that would be quite wrong," said Mr Knowles.
"Parliamentary privilege is part of the law - and it is for Parliament to apply the law in their cases."
He said the case was of "high constitutional importance" but added the criminal courts had "no jurisdiction" over them.
"Proceedings in parliament cannot be impeached or questioned in any court or place outside Parliament," he said.
In a separate hearing after the Labour lawmakers, the court heard White would also argue he was covered by parliamentary privilege.
His lawyer Rupert Bowers said he would deny charges of wrongly claiming for "repayment of travelling and other expenses".