DCSIMG

Police ‘should have stopped flag parades’

A flag protest at the City Hall in Belfast

A flag protest at the City Hall in Belfast

Police chiefs wrongly facilitated illegal and violent loyalist flag protest marches, a High Court judge ruled yesterday.

Mr Justice Treacy held that a senior officer misdirected himself in believing he was hampered by law from stopping the parades and arresting participants.

The PSNI’s handling of the demonstrations also breached the human rights of a nationalist resident exposed to accompanying disorder, he found.

The judge said: “The impugned policing operation during the period complained of was characterised by an unjustified enforcement inertia.”

His verdict was delivered in a case over weekly processions from east Belfast into the city centre during December 2012 and January 2013.

Demonstrations were staged in response to the decision to restrict the flying of the UnionFlag at City Hall.

A man who lives in the nationalist Short Strand district went to court in a bid to quash the PSNI’s failure to provide assurances that it would prevent any future parade past his home.

He claimed this breached his privacy and family life entitlements under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

It was also contended that police failure to prevent the parades contravened both the Public Processions (NI) Act 1998 and the Police (NI) Act 2000.

Lawyers for the resident, identified only as DB, argued that no notification was given for any of the parades in December or January.

Counsel for DB contended that he had been left “besieged” by the serious disorder, violence and attacks on his home.

Delivering judgment, Mr Justice Treacy set out how Assistant Chief Constable Will Kerr, the commander in charge of the PSNI operation around the protests, believed police were hampered in their ability to stop the parades by either the 1998 Act or human rights legislation.

“It is evident that ACC Kerr was labouring under a material misapprehension as to the proper scope of police powers and the legal context in which they were operating,” he said.

No explanation was given for why, having facilitated some form of protest at City Hall, protesters were permitted to march back via the Short Strand when the return leg was associated with serious public disorder, the judge pointed out.

He also commented that, even though police had met with march organisers as far back as January 9, the decision to take action against high profile organisers was not made until February 25 – after the decision had been made to stop the marches.

 

Comments

 
 

Back to the top of the page