Legal challenge to Belfast City Council procedures over proposed Irish language policy could have 'absurd' consequences, court told

Lawyers for the local authority claimed the case mounted over its voting rules on politically divisive decisions about the planned strategy and flying of the Palestinian flag wrongly amounted to “a triumph of form over substance”.

Traditional Unionist Voice (TUV) member Ann McClure is seeking to judicially review the Council over the operation of a call-in scheme for voting on controversial issues with a potential adverse community impact.

She contends that the current process unlawfully thwarts safeguards aimed at protecting minority views.

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 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, the court heard.

Mr Justice McLaughlin was told this defies the statutory scheme and subjects the minority safeguard to a majority veto.

On day two of the case Denise Kiley KC, for Belfast City Council, said the challenge was based on a narrow dispute over statutory interpretations.

The local authority agreed an obligation exists to reconsider a decision if an admissible call-in has been lodged, the court heard.

But Ms Kiley disputed that this is sufficient to trigger qualified majority voting in all circumstances.

“On the applicant’s interpretation there is no threshold to overcome. A tick-box only,” the barrister said.

“There is no need to state any reasons (according to Ms McClure’s lawyers), there’s no requirement to establish the decision would actually have a disproportionate adverse effect on anyone.”

Under that interpretation mere citation of the grounds for the requisition without any adjudication of the merits is enough, the court was told.

Counsel submitted: “It is a triumph of form over substance, that cannot be correct.

“It is an interpretation which fails to reflect the words and purpose of the statutory interpretation, and creates absurd results.”

The case continues.