Belfast City Council bypassed minority interest protections over Irish language policy in “cobbled together” process, court told

Belfast City Council bypassed minority interest protections over a proposed Irish language policy in a “cobbled together” process which was unlawful and farcical, the High Court heard today.

Lawyers for a unionist campaigner claimed that allowing majority opinion to determine the merits of a safeguard was like the type of approach taken in 1930s Louisiana.

Judgment was reserved in Ann McClure’s legal challenge to the local authority’s handling of voting rules on the planned language strategy and flying of the Palestinian flag.

Ms McClure, a Traditional Unionist Voice (TUV) member, is seeking to judicially review its operation of a call-in scheme used for controversial issues with a potential adverse community impact

Proceedings were issued after councillors in Belfast approved a draft Irish language policy in October last year.

The blueprint aims to promote the use of Irish in public life, with bilingual signage and logos to appear on council facilities, signage and uniforms.

Amid unionist objections, a call-in mechanism was triggered to scrutinise the legitimacy of the original decision.

Under the procedure a 15% minority of councillors can request a reconsideration which involves seeking legal opinion on any possible adverse community impact.

If those concerns are assessed as being valid, an 80% super majority may be required in a call-in for the original motion to be voted in again.

The draft Irish language policy for Belfast currently remains on hold pending the outcome of that process.

Ms McClure and her legal team claim the Council has wrongly interpreted relevant sections of the Local Government (Northern Ireland) Act 2014.

Her action widened into a systemic challenge after the authority backed Sinn Fein proposals to fly the Palestinian flag for one day at City Hall.

Unionists again objected and called in the original decision taken to mark Palestinian Solidarity Day.

Following a further vote the flag was eventually raised for a short period at the start of December.

Earlier in proceedings the Council accepted that legal opinion on the merits of a call-in requisition should not be treated as determinative.

According to Ms McClure’s representatives, the new standing order arrangements have arguably made the situation worse.

A simple majority of councillors will now determine whether any decision called-in for reconsideration should be subjected to the qualified voting protections.

Counsel for the TUV woman, John Larkin KC, argued that the statutory scheme had been undermined by the filter.

He claimed it was akin to the type of approach taken in Louisiana during the 1930s.

“It is farcical… asking a majority to decide if a minority can exercise a minority safeguard,” the barrister contended.

Earlier in the hearing the Council branded the challenge as “a triumph of form over substance” which was based on a legal interpretation which would have “absurd” consequences.

The court was told it would mean merely citing grounds for the requisition without any adjudication of the merits would be enough to meet the test, according to Ms McClure’s case.

But Mr Larkin stressed the 15% minority can only requisition a call-in before a further 6% of councillors would still be needed to halt any motion at a re-vote.

“Don’t be misled that this is holding the council to ransom or bringing its decision-making to a standstill,” he said.

“A minority of 20% still loses because 80% will carry the day.”

Reiterating his contention that the local authority has “piled illegality on illegality”, the barrister maintained that its assessment involved bypassing standing orders and making it up as they went along.

“The Council’s cobbled together filter is contrary to the regulations and accordingly unlawful,” he added.

Mr Justice McLaughlin reserved judgment in the case following four days of legal arguments.

He pledged: “I’ve got an awful lot to think about, I will endeavour to (give my decision) as soon as I can.