MLA says Naomi Long 'brushed aside' concerns about football hooligan laws as Jamie Bryson declares legal victory
Stormont’s justice minister took a “dismissive approach” to concerns about the ability of authorities to enforce laws designed to curb football hooliganism, a TUV MLA has said.
Timothy Gaston has accused Naomi Long of brushing aside legal issues raised by Jamie Bryson over whether legislation had been updated to reflect changes in the local game.
Mr Bryson had contended that the powers were unenforceable, and the Department of Justice this week announced its intent to amend the powers after a judicial review he had brought.
Minister Long had previously said the powers were still active – citing legislation from the 1950s about the interpretation of legislation. Speaking after the court case on Tuesday, Mr Bryson said all football banning orders and criminal convictions over the past 13 years are now “questionable”.
He told the News Letter: “Obviously I am pleased to have forced the Department of Justice (DoJ) to have to change the law after saying they would not, but such has the defiance been, it is necessary that a formal court remedy is granted to mark what I say was the obviously unlawful nature of their previous approach.
“A little under 4 weeks after Minister Long declared she would not change the law and that all was fine, DOJ have now, following senior Crown Counsel advice, commenced the process of changing the law to remedy the issue identified by this challenge.
North Antrim MLA Mr Gaston welcomed the fact that DoJ had “conceded” the judicial review brought by Mr Bryson and “accepted that Schedule 3 of the Justice Act requires amendment”.
He added: “However, this raises serious questions about the Minister’s earlier dismissive approach to the issues that were being highlighted.
“When these concerns were first raised, they were brushed aside. We were told there was no problem. Yet today, the Department has effectively admitted that there was a defect in the law all along. That inevitably leads to the question: why was this not addressed at the outset, rather than forcing the taxpayer to fund a legal defence of a position that has now been abandoned?”
The DoJ has been contacted for a response.