Judgment reserved in Conradh na Gaeilge’s latest challenge to delay on Irish language strategy
Anything short of ordering the Stormont Executive to finally implement an Irish language strategy would simply be “howling at the moon”, the High Court heard today.
Counsel for a campaign group claimed the power-sharing coalition cannot be trusted to fulfil a legal obligation imposed 20 years ago unless it is compelled to deliver the blueprint.
Karen Quinlivan KC also argued that judicial criticism alone of the administration’s inactivity would represent a failure to uphold the rule of law.
Judgment was reserved in Conradh na Gaeilge’s latest challenge to the ongoing delay in adopting an Irish language strategy.
Two courts have already issued previous declarations that Stormont is in breach of a legal duty to ensure an initiative which dates back to the 2006 St Andrews Agreement.
Amid an ongoing alleged violation of the obligation, the language campaigners issued fresh judicial review proceedings against both the Executive and the Department for Communities (DfC).
Conradh na Gaeilge have alleged an unjustified failure to act, and that Communities Minister Gordon Lyons has unlawfully “thwarted” any implementation.
They are seeking a mandatory order compelling the respondents in the case to take action.
During the latest proceedings it was confirmed that an Irish language strategy will not be implemented before the current Assembly’s regime ends in May 2027.
Senior counsel representing DfC did not oppose a declaration of unlawfulness being made against the wider Executive Committee.
He questioned the effectiveness of issuing an order of mandamus amid wider budgetary pressures faced by other Departments.
According to Ms Quinlivan, however, such an outcome is necessary to reflect “stalling” by members of the coalition.
The barrister accused the Executive of being non-cooperative and refusing to indicate if it will comply with declarations granted against previous administrations.
“It frankly demonstrates contempt for the workings of this court,” she said.
Mr Justice McAlinden was told no attempt had been made to “sugarcoat” confirmation about no strategy being imminent.
“You have an Executive Committee which simply cannot be trusted to comply with declaratory orders without being coerced,” counsel submitted.
“The court expressed a concern that it should not be seen to be ‘howling at the moon’.
“It is precisely what will happen if the court issues a declaration.”
She argued a repeat of the outcome reached in previous challenges would allow Stormont to continue what it has been doing for 20 years.
“A decision to grant another declaration will amount to an acceptance by the court that on this issue it is simply not prepared to uphold the rule of law,” Ms Quinlivan added.
“By repeating the exercise we are essentially telling this Executive Committee and all future Executive Committees ‘do what you want, the court is resigned to howling at the moon, resigned to being ineffective, you can continue to ignore court orders with impunity and there will be no consequences for your inaction.
“It would be a violation of the principle of the rule of law, and an improper undermining of Parliament’s legislative instruction.”