Madden & Finucane
Ranked
Number 1
by Chambers,
the clients guide
to the legal profession
Chambers and Partners have been publishing their
world-famous guides to the legal profession since 1990. The key to the success
of their legal directories and the validity of their awards is the in-depth,
unbiased research conducted by their team of highly qualified and experienced
researchers. View more
Madden & Finucane
present
the Madden & Finucane
and Pat Finucane
Aisling Awards
The Aisling Bursaries, launched in March 2000, are
an educational initiative between Belfast Media Group and West Belfast
Partnership. The Aisling Bursaries are designed to help students defray their
education and training costs.
View
more
|
|
Law Lords back RUC's handling of Holy Cross
13 November 2008 --
THE highest court in the land has praised the RUC's handling of the 2001 Holy
Cross dispute – in a damning dismissal of claims of sectarianism and human
rights breaches levelled at the police.
The House of Lords threw out a case against the force yesterday.
One Law Lord also offered withering criticism of the nature of the Northern
Ireland Human Rights Commission's (NIHRC) support for the lawsuit.
It was taken by the mother of a Holy Cross Primary School pupil (represented by
solicitors Madden and Finucane), accusing the RUC of infringing her daughter's
rights in its management of the stand-off.
Five Law Lords unanimously found against the appeal of the parent and Child E,
which was previously also dismissed in the Belfast High Court and the Court of
Appeal.
They rejected claims the RUC was not robust enough with protestors.
They also rejected allegations the policing operation could have had a sectarian
bias and that the force treated the walk to school like a contentious Orange
parade, rather than dealing with the need to protect the children.
The eminent judges believed the police did the best possible job in the most
difficult of circumstances – into which they poured millions of pounds and
thousands of man hours.
They found no evidence, whatsoever, that the RUC would have treated the
situation differently had the protestors been Catholic and the children
Protestants.
Indeed Lord Carswell said the RUC's actions at Holy Cross – when officers
"placed themselves as a shield between a hostile and dangerous crowd and a small
group of vulnerable people" – ultimately helped resolve the situation.
"In my judgment the evidence supports the overall wisdom of the course which
they (the RUC] adopted," he stated.
Ex-RUC Assistant Chief Constable Alan McQuillan, who oversaw the operation,
said: "We did everything possible to try to make sure we did this correctly and
within the law.
"Not one child was physically injured, although they suffered stress. But many
officers were injured."
The police said they were pleased it had been established they did everything
under the obligations of human rights legislation.
DUP MLA and policing spokesman Ian Paisley Jnr said the police had been "totally
vindicated" by the judgment.
And he attacked the NIHRC for backing the case – despite legal advice and some
of the commission warning against the move.
Mr Paisley Jnr noted that one of the Law Lords, Lord Hoffman, seriously
questioned the judgment of the NIHRC.
He said that the commission had been offered a "stinging rebuke" by Lord Hoffman
whom he believed had "chided the intervention of the NIHRC in stark terms".
Lord Hoffman said: "An intervention is of no assistance if it merely repeats
points which the appellant (mother] or respondent (RUC/the Crown] has already
made.
"I am bound to say that in this appeal the oral submissions on behalf of the
NIHRC only repeated in rather more emphatic terms the points which had already
been quite adequately argued by counsel for the appellant.
"In future I hope that interveners will avoid unnecessarily taking up the time
of the House in this way."
Mr Paisley said: "That ruling effectively accused the Northern Ireland Human
Rights Commission of merely repeating points which had already been made by the
appellant. Such an approach is a very poor reflection on the commission.
"However, that a senior Law Lord should have accused the commission of
unnecessarily taking up the time of the House of Lords is a truly damning state
of affairs indeed.
"The NIHRC sought to intervene in this case and in so doing they have been
deeply embarrassed."
But the commission noted it did not take the case but intervened, with the House
of Lords' permission, as a third party on human rights legal points.
NIHRC chief commissioner Monica McWilliams insisted the body was right to take
the case.
It has sought to establish that when the case was dismissed in the Belfast
courts a wrong test had been applied on human rights and the commission had
needed to clarify the point for future reference.
Ms McWilliams noted Lord Carswell agreed there had been a wrong test and said
Lord Hoffman would not permit the NIHRC making such challenges in future.
It is expected that the case of Child E could be taken to the European Court of
Human Rights.
|
|
more..
|
|
|