"A fragile flower"
Today Mr Justice Gillen rejected Michelle Williamson's challenge to the appointment of four Victims Commissioners. The judgment in the case brought by Ms Williamson, whose relatives were killed in the IRA's Shankill Road bombing, contains some fascinating observations about the workings of the government at Stormont Castle.
Ms Williamson's lawyers had argued that the failure of Messrs Paisley and McGuinness to keep a paper trail documenting their decision to switch from appointing just one Victims Commissioner to a team of four called in to question the candour of the evidence provided by the Executive.
However the judge rejected this arguing that "the process of joint decision making which will command public trust and confidence is a fragile flower which requires careful tending". He said it would be "singularly unhelpful" for the courts to prescribe how the First and Deputy First should secure unity of decision making.
The judgment appears to approve of private deals in what would have been described in days gone by (prior to the smoking ban) as "smoke filled rooms".
The judge did not "find it unlawful or improper that from time to time decisions of the First and Deputy First Minister may be arrived at by joint meetings of the Ministers without officials present or documentation being made of the almost inevitable painstaking and at times perhaps even tortuous or rancorous evolution of agreement which in the initial stages may seem unlikely.....This is a new model of governance and old procedural straight jackets may have to be modified so long as the parties have acted within the rule of law and the terms set down by Parliament. The absence of documentation, note taking or presence of officials in sensitive discussions between Ministers does not lead to the drawing of an adverse inference of unlawfulness, discrimination or of political considerations having infected the process unlawfully."
In short, this judgment looks to have cut the legs off any future attempt to judicially review the OFMDFM and to provide a "carte blanche" for meetings without officials and note takers present.
But never fear, if you disagree in the future with an OFMDFM decision, you don't need to turn to the courts, because our ministers, as Mr Justice Gillen notes "are accountable to the Assembly where they are likely to be questioned and scrutinised". And we all know just how effective the Assembly has been at carrying out that job in the past.
I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~12~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Mark,
I think the judgement made today against Paisley Jr is too severe and an absolute joke. Paisley Junior has stood by a constituent. How many MLA's would do it?
Stormontspy
Complain about this comment
Mark,
Why have the media not picked up on whats been happening at the tribunal. It makes interesting reading...and its available online.
The amount of people caught out giving false information and the seniority of their rank....especially with reference to memos that supposedly didn't exist but then one witness produced a photocopy of them all depsite the sworn testimoney of govenors and senior police officers....big story I would have thought.
I think if this puts of whistleblowers it has been a very sad day for our democracy. No one will blow stories like this open again if they feel they may be unmasked in the future...they should be allowed to remain unknown and politicans free to pass on their eye witness accounts without fear of retribution by the state...who it seems just want the story to go away.
Complain about this comment
Mr Justice Gillen was right in his judgment. All he has done is recognise that when it comes to the law and politics there is a dividing line, that not everything that happens in our political system can be - or should be - open to full legal scrutiny. Despite the ineptitude of our current Executive, the reality is that the power sharing (or power carving) arrangement we all agreed to is more like a difficult marriage than a legal contract. It is about developing relationships and compromises, ones that can only happen in private.
Never thought I would say that...
And to surprise myself this morning for a second time, assuming Paisley Junior's whistleblower isn't a figment of his imagination, then he is right to refuse to name his source. However, he was wrong to issue what was a threat to John Larkin. This is one of the clearest examples of a politician threatening a member of the legal profession I think I have seen. When will the Paisley's realise they are here to represent us, not to further their own family dynasty and impose themselves on the electorate? And why aren't the media making more of this threat?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Summed up very well Mark, the judge has basically ruled that our "fragile flower" of an experiment in government is making the rules up as they go along. This may be fine as far as "the law" goes, but as a practical example of how government operates, this does not set a good precedent.
Complain about this comment
Mark
I'm off-piste again but I simply couldn't let last Saturday's arms decommissioning circus go unremarked.
LOYALIST ARMS DECOMMISSIONING MORE THEATRE THAN SUBSTANCE
What happened on Saturday demonstrates a society in thrall to manifest madness. Killers. drug dealers, people traffickers, extortionists are today walking the streets of Shankill, East Belfast, Kilcooley, Larne & Carrickfergus and many other areas, sniggering up their sleeves at the ease with which they have been able to manipulate the political establishment.
That charade shared many of the characteristics that were evident when the PIRA allegedly decommissioned.
- The UK Government allowing criminal conspiracies free rein.
- The political parties & relevant authorities colluding in the conspiracy to let killers go free.
- Convicted criminals spouting gibberish about advancing the interests of working-class areas, blah-de-blah.
- Dawn Purvis trying in vain to give respectability to the whole farce. As was Peter Robinson, taking time off from completing his expenses claims, and using that awful word 'historic' as part of his lauding of the murdering scum's alleged decommissioning.
- Shaun Woodward conspiring with John de Chastelain in a ruse that will allow Loyalist Godfathers to enrich themselves as a quid pro quo for the pretence of decommissioning. In other words, a clatter of money will go straight into their pockets via a front of Government-assisted packages. Oh, and loyalists will have to confine criminal activities to their own areas.
In today's Ulster, the abnormal is the norm; the lie is the truth; the criminal is the victim and our political masters play fast & loose with the justice system.
And to crown it all, Jackie McDonald can look forward to another invitation to the K-Club from his friend Mary McAleese.
Susie
Carryduff
Complain about this comment
Susie,
You said - "In today's Ulster, the abnormal is the norm; the lie is the truth; the criminal is the victim and our political masters play fast & loose with the justice system."
How true.
Stormontspy
Complain about this comment
'POSITIVE DISCRIMINATION AND CONFLICT OF INTEREST'
In his ruling in favour of OFMDFM, is Mr Justice Gillen saying that behind closed doors, Ministers of the Crown can reach an agreement in making public appointments, set aside the law on discrimination of employment: that the Ministerial Code has no bearing in legal matters of this nature?
Surely in these appointments there is a conflict of interest in that two members of the Victims Commission, Bertha McDougall OBE and Patricia MacBride, are family members of "victims".
Pandora
Complain about this comment
VICTIMS FORUM..
After the ruling by Mr Justice Gillen, one member of the Victims Commission, Mr Mike Nesbitt commented on BBC television that the Commission can now get on with distributing the money. How can this go ahead without the issue of a definition of a victim being sorted out by the yet to be established Victims and Survivors Forum? Paragraph 24 of the Outline Draft Strategic approach for Victims and Survivors Consultation paper of August 2008 clearly states: "The Forum will also have the role of examining the issues surrounding the definition of "victim" and to make recommendations"
Pandora
Complain about this comment
susie for once we agree on something.
Although not all political parties agreed to the decomissioning process.
The DUP opposed the GFA the IICD but lost that agrument in 1998. Now that the process is here though, better to have the guns of the street, than hidden around the place, especially given the amateur nature of loyalist paramilitaries. Couldn't organise a booze up in a pub.
That said at least the loyalists have caught on that decomissioning is worth something. Look at the concessions the republicans got out of the govt and UUP in return for their attempts at it.
They have finally caught on that the 'war' is over and want improvements in the community.
sickening that they can try and exchange guns for money, but blame everyone who voted yes!
Complain about this comment
The victim definition is another UUP mess...
The surviving physically and psychologically injured of violent, conflict related incidents and those close relatives or partners who care for them, along with those close relatives or partners who mourn their dead.
The Ulster Unionist Junior Minister in the OFMDFM stated in the foreword of the Victims Strategy Reshape Rebuild Achieve that;
The publication of this document is a key step forward in that process and we are delighted to endorse its content.
link of the original document with the first occasion this definition was used follows. copy and paste to browser.
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS