Belfast City Council procedures on Irish language policy 'not unlawful'
Belfast City Council procedures for reconsidering a proposed Irish language policy were not unlawful, a High Court judge ruled today.
Mr Justice McLaughlin dismissed claims that the local authority’s handling of voting rules had wrongly thwarted safeguards aimed at protecting minority views.
He identified a legal defect in a separate determination about flying of the Palestinian flag but declined to quash that decision.
The outcome was reached in a case brought by Traditional Unionist Voice (TUV) campaigner Ann McClure against the operation of a call-in scheme for voting on 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 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’s lawyers claimed the Council had wrongly interpreted relevant sections of the Local Government (Northern Ireland) Act 2014.
A new filter was wrongly created which handed a veto to a simple majority of the elected representatives, it was contended.
But Mr Justice McLaughlin held that the standing orders under scrutiny were not ultra vires, or outside the legal powers of the Act.
“I am of the clear view that section 41(1) does not require that a reconsideration based on qualified majority voting must take place in response to every requisition presented on the ground of disproportionate adverse effect, solely on account of the belief of 15% of councillors as to the effects of the decision,” he said.
The legal action widened out into a systemic challenge after the Council backed a Sinn Fein proposal 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.
Court papers described Ms McClure as a politically active member of the unionist community in Belfast who has actively campaigned against the adoption and implementation of an Irish language policy.
She was also said to regard the decision to fly the Palestinian flag as a further attack on unionist values and offensive to the city’s Jewish community.
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.
The TUV woman’s barrister, 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.
During submissions Mr Larkin described it as a farcical situation which amounted to “piling illegality on illegality”.
Lawyers for the Council branded the challenge as “a triumph of form over substance” and based on a legal interpretation which would have “absurd” consequences.
The court was told Ms McClure’s case meant merely citing grounds for the requisition without any adjudication of the merits would be enough to meet the test.
In a 48-page judgment, Mr Justice McLaughlin said the legislation gave councils sufficient procedural autonomy to permit the inclusion of a mechanism for ensuring that the views of the council members who supported the requisition are sufficiently well-founded.
Turning to how the vote around flying the Palestinian flag was handled, he set out how councillors received legal opinion that it was not likely to have a disproportionate impact on the Jewish community.
But a statutory process for amending the standing orders was not properly completed.
The judge identified “procedural confusion” when the full Council decided on the adverse effects of flying the flag, assessing the route taken as “without adequate legal foundation and ultra vires”.
Ultimately, however, he said the same outcome would have been inevitable if standing orders were correctly applied rather than a simple majority vote.
“I do not consider it to be either necessary or appropriate to quash the decision of the Council on December 1, 2025,” he confirmed.
Dismissing all other grounds of challenge, Mr Justice McLaughlin suggested issuing a final declaration about authority’s decision by simple majority vote that flying the Palestinian flag
for 24 hours from the City Hall would not have a disproportionate adverse effect on the Jewish community.