DUP MLA questions prosecution of Markethill bandsmen for unnotified parade compared to decision on SDLP leader Colum Eastwood

A DUP MLA says that the conviction of three men for an unnotified parade in Markethill is not consistent with the decision not to prosecute Colum Eastwood for the same actions in Londonderry.
Watch more of our videos on Shots! 
and live on Freeview channel 276
Visit Shots! now

Last week it was confirmed that SDLP leader Colum Eastwood would not be prosecuted for marching down a main road in Londonderry with the Bloody Sunday families in 2022 to attend a hearing about the prosecution of Soldier F.

The PPS decided not to prosecute because it involved a small number of people, was peaceful, caused no public disorder, inconvenience to traffic or the public and caused no complaints from the community.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

But the DUP and TUV said the decision stood in sharp contrast with the treatment of an unnotified parade in Markethill in 2021.

A DUP MLA says that the conviction of three men for an unnotified parade in Markethill is not consistent with the decision not to prosecute Colum Eastwood (pictured) for the same actions in Londonderry. Photo: Oliver McVeigh/PA WireA DUP MLA says that the conviction of three men for an unnotified parade in Markethill is not consistent with the decision not to prosecute Colum Eastwood (pictured) for the same actions in Londonderry. Photo: Oliver McVeigh/PA Wire
A DUP MLA says that the conviction of three men for an unnotified parade in Markethill is not consistent with the decision not to prosecute Colum Eastwood (pictured) for the same actions in Londonderry. Photo: Oliver McVeigh/PA Wire

Both notified and unnotified parades were held there in 2021 in protest against the non-prosecution of participants in the funeral procession of leading republican Bobby Storey in June 2020 - and also in protest against the Northern Ireland Protocol.

The News Letter reported anger in the town after the PSNI sent up to nine officers at a time to hand deliver letters to 14 bandsmen asking them to volunteer for an interview about a parade.

Three men were later convicted of taking part in an unnotified parade on 21 April 2021, and fined £200 each.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

But Newry and Armagh DUP MLA William Irwin questioned the consistency of approach.

"Everyone should be equal under the law and equally subject to the law," he said. "In the Londonderry case, the Public Prosecution Service seems to have taken a different path.

"When you compare Londonderry and Markethill, surely it raises questions about the consistency of approach from the Public Prosecution Service? This inconsistent approach will have consequences in taking prosecutions forward in the future.

"Within hours of the Markethill event, there was a pro-Palestinian rally in Armagh, with elected representatives in attendance, yet where were the prosecutions?

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

"Where the implementation of the law becomes inconsistent, there can be grave consequences for society because one group will feel they are an easy target.”

A TUV spokesman responded that the "double standards when it comes to parading are nauseating".

He added: "This story about the Markethill convictions comes off the back of the decision not to prosecute the SDLP leader even though he was found to have broken the law. Not only was he not prosecuted but it is reported that he received a phone call from the Chief Constable apologising for the investigation!

“One of the key arguments advanced by those who took part in the event in Londonderry is that it caused no offence to anyone locally. The same argument could be made in relation to Markethill and yet we see three young men who have had the book thrown at them.”

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

A PPS spokesperson responded: “Each case is considered carefully in light of its individual facts and circumstances, and therefore a simple comparison of outcomes will often be misleading.

"All PPS decision making is taken impartially, independently and strictly in line with the Code for Prosecutors. The perceived community background of any reported person has no bearing on PPS decision making and we strongly refute any suggestion of this.”