Shankill bomb victim's brother challenges head of human rights body over Troubles legacy unit comments

Lawyers representing the brother of a schoolgirl killed in the Shankill bombing claimed Alyson Kilpatrick had no legal authority to question former senior police officer Peter Sheridan’s role as a top investigator within the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery.

They also alleged she was not entitled to suggest a possible conflict of interests for ICRIR Chief Commissioner Sir Declan Morgan due to his part-time involvement with the Supreme Court.

Gary Murray is seeking an order requiring the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission to either retract comments Ms Kilpatrick made in a press interview or clarify they do not represent its corporate view.

Judicial review proceedings were put on hold today to allow him to lodge a formal complaint as a potential alternative remedy.

Mr Murray’s 13-year-old sister, Leeanne, was among nine victims killed in the IRA bomb attack on a fish shop on Belfast’s Shankill Road in October 1993.

He wants ICRIR to carry out a fresh examination into the atrocity in a bid to obtain further answers about what happened.

He wants ICRIR to carry out a fresh examination into the atrocity in a bid to obtain further answers about what happened.

Legal proceedings centre on an interview Ms Kilpatrick, Chief Commissioner at the NI Human Rights Commission, gave to the Irish News in July this year.

According to the article she expressed concerns about Mr Sheridan’s ability to to be independent based on his previous position as a senior police officer.

Issues were also raised about the potential conflict in the duties of Sir Declan, a former Lord Chief Justice in Northern Ireland.

Mr Murray claims the comments were unlawful and misrepresent ICRIR’s independence.

The statement was made without corporate authority and went beyond the NI Human Rights Commission’s statutory functions, his legal team contended.

Barrister Emma McIlveen told the court that the comments could influence public confidence in the legacy body.

“The public statement made by Ms Kilpatrick have arguably impacted on the independence and perceived credibility of ICRIR,” she submitted.

The court heard the article highlighted how the human rights chief believed the position of the lead investigator at ICRIR untenable.

“If anyone from the public who was considering engaging with the body looked at that (headline), it could potentially undermine that process,” Ms Mcilveen added.

Counsel for Ms Kilpatrick has argued there was a legal framework which supported the legitimacy of any comments under scrutiny.

Steven McQuitty KC also stressed the case centred on general comments made in a newspaper interview, rather than an extensive analysis of relevant jurisprudence or any formal expression of policy.

“The Chief Commissioner was not giving any formal legal advice, (she) was reflecting a particular concern about how this would work in practice,” he said.

“We are moving into the area of general comment and concern about the structure that has been adopted.”

Mr Justice McLaughlin was told those concerns have been vindicated by amendments contained in the Government’s proposed new Troubles legacy legislation.

In a partial ruling, the judge refused to grant leave to seek a judicial view on one ground of challenge relating to an alleged improper purpose behind the comments.

But he adjourned the rest of the hearing after it emerged that Mr Murray can lodge a formal complaint with the NI Human Rights Commission.

Mr Justice McLaughlin stated: “The complaint process is a potentially valuable mechanism, even if it doesn't resolve the case as a whole.”