A HIGH Court judge has stepped in and slashed the suspension of renegade Macclesfield councillor Brendan Murphy so that he can return immediately to the council chamber.

At the same time, the judge, Mr Justice Keith, added to the recent criticism faced by the council by saying Brendan Murphy had been given "conflicting and confusing" advice by senior council officers.

After last week's judgement Brendan Murphy was immediately in touch with council officials whom, he says, had cut him off completely from information normally made available to councillors.

He is now hoping for full briefings from them on events during the four months since he was suspended by the Standards Board for England and is seeking re-appointment to a variety of council committees.

Acting chief executive Vivienne Horton will only say she is planning to meet with Brendan in the coming days to discuss those issues and said the council had taken legal advice before deciding what information should be sent to the councillor during his suspension.

Brendan, a former Conservative councillor, who aroused the enmity of the ruling Tory group over the proposed Danegate development, has won support from leaders of the other two political parties.

Labour leader Steve Carter said: "He has been very badly treated by the local Conservatives. This whole affair was simply a political vendetta, masquerading as an issue of standards in public office."

He said he had written to the judge in the case making it clear Brendan was "an honourable man who was valued by the people of Macclesfield".

Leading Liberal Adrian Bradley said: "I am glad to see him back and his suspension reduced. The new regime we are now working within should allow him to make a positive contribution."

Tory Coun Wesley Fitzgerald refused to comment.

At the High Court Mr Justice Keith ruled that Brendan Murphy had been rightly suspended by the Standards Board for England but that it was too harsh to keep him from serving as a councillor for a full year. He cut it to four months, meaning Brendan could go straight back to representing his Tytherington constituents.

Paying tribute to the "moderation and courtesy" of Brendan in presenting his case, the judge said he had given many years of public service and "no-one had called his integrity into question".

He said the councillor had received "conflicting and confusing advice" before the August 2002 meeting where he decided to speak about a motion that would have led the council to officially "regret" a local government ombudsman's report that criticised Brendan Murphy's role in the Danegate controversy.

This week Vivienne Horton, who would have been responsible for advising Brendan Murphy if she had not been on holiday at the time, refused to condemn the advice he was given by her stand-in, a freelance called Mike Dudfield, and the then Chief Executive David Parr.

"They gave the best advice they could at the time. These issues are not always black and white and my advice to members is always to declare an interest if they are in doubt," she said.

She said she did not necessarily review the decision taken by her stand-in. "No, I don't take responsibility for the person deputising for me," she told the Express.

She did, however, admit: "The Code of Conduct had only been in force since May and there was some confusion."

Brendan Murphy said the judge's comments did show up a flawed system of advice for members in Macclesfield and other members must be concerned about the advice given to them.

During the court hearing he attacked the Standard Board's findings as disproportionate, wrong in law and a violation of his human right to free speech.

He said: "I am disappointed that the judgement didn't give me the right to defend myself against the Ombudsman's criticisms."

While the judge clearly agreed they were too harsh he also ruled that the Board were right to suspend him.

He said although "extremely hesitant" to interfere with the sanction imposed by the Standards Board it could not have given "sufficient weight to the unusual features of the case, namely that Councillor Murphy's interest in the Ombudsman's report was known to everyone, or the conflicting and confusing advice he received."

Brendan said he was happy with the judgement but disappointed that the judge had not recognised that the right of free speech was being affected.

He said: "Since this case I have been contacted by councillors from all around the country and many of them are concerned that officers are using codes of conduct to crush councillors and run town halls free of interference from elected members."

He said he didn't think that was what had happened at Macclesfield but he was concerned about "young, ambitious senior officers who were looking for major projects to enhance their career prospects".

The ramifications of the case still rumble on and Brendan Murphy says he and the Standards Board for England had now agreed they will each pay their own costs of the High Court case. If they had not agreed the judge would have decided.

He said: "This saga has cost a lot of money for me personally - and for the taxpayer. But I am still not sure what crime the government was trying to stop and who was supposed to be the villain.

"My case may be relatively unimportant but once government starts to restrict free political debate it is stepping onto a slippery political slope."