Parades Commission Drumcree row: ​WhatsApp group messages challenged

Court papers contended: “This anonymous social media account had made no submissions to the Commission, his/her identity is unknown and these views constituted an improper consideration to be taken into account.”

Amid further claims about a failure to review the determination, the Orange Order argued that local DUP MP Carla Lockhart had requested a meeting before the determination was reached.

One of the body’s representatives wrongly informed the Chief Commissioner that Ms Lockart received an email inviting her to participate, the court was told, when in fact it never reached her due to an error in sending it.

“Despite this awareness no correction or update was provided to the Commission, in order to correct the erroneous impression that the local Member of Parliament had not availed of an invitation to make submissions,” it was claimed.

Mr McGleenan responded that any error in the representative’s oral evidence was corrected in a later affidavit.

Deciding not to impose an indemnity order on the Commission, Mr Justice McAlinden instead ruled that it should instead pay usual costs.

He held that the authority’s concessions came at any early enough stage to avoid the further financial penalty.

The judge added: “If the Parades Commission had persisted in its defence of this decision, brazened it out and required the court to make an order on the basis of evidence, I would have had no hesitation in indicating the court’s displeasure with the approach to public administration by making an order for costs to be awarded on an indemnity basis.

“But that hasn’t happened. The Parades Commission conceded the application before it was determined.”

It came during a court case over a decision to bar the Orange Order from part of the flashpoint Drumcree marching route – which was quashed is to be quashed after the Parades Commission conceded a procedural error in how it dealt with it.