´óÏó´«Ã½

´óÏó´«Ã½ BLOGS - The Devenport Diaries
« Previous | Main | Next »

"A fragile flower"

Mark Devenport | 16:59 UK time, Tuesday, 30 June 2009

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.

Comments

´óÏó´«Ã½ iD

´óÏó´«Ã½ navigation

´óÏó´«Ã½ © 2014 The ´óÏó´«Ã½ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.