22/04/2012 Sunday Politics Northern Ireland

In Northern Ireland: it is a special relationship, but what does

the rout offered the Attorney General's content case mean for

Apology for the loss of subtitles for 1727 seconds

The hello and welcome to the Sunday politics in Northern Ireland. The

controversy over the Attorney- General's decision to prosecute a

former secretary of state has gone harsh judgments from Westminster.

Hanging in the balance the rights of an individual for fair comment,

verses do respect of the independence of the judiciary.

The Alliance Party held its conference. It prepares to lose a

seat at the executive. It looks as though Stephen is about to

establish a record, the First Minister threatened with the sack

because both he and his party are successful in what they are aiming

to do. Find of what happens when descend master paid a visit to

Stormont. - that the Zen master. It is not that often we have a row

between politicians and did judiciary. The go round made it to

the floor of the House of Commons. The former shadow home secretary

David Davies at the ball rolling on Monday. I draw your attention to an

action taken by the Attorney- General of Northern Ireland when he

started proceedings against against the Right Honourable Member for

Neath. It was about scandalising the court, it was described.

ven David Blunkett raised it again and Prime Minister's Questions and

this was the response. I have a great deal of sympathy with what

the Right Honourable Gentleman says. Parliamentary privilege allows

members to express their views in Parliament. Outside Parliament,

there are occasions when judges make critical remarks about - about

politicians and vice versa. To meet this is part of life in a modern

democracy and we should keep these things out of the Court Room.

joined by Patsy McGlone. Is this exercising politicians in Stormont?

Not particularly. We are living in a free society and in that type of

society politicians can be criticised, but equally I see

nothing wrong with criticism of judges and the judgments they make.

That is freedom and the nature of democracy. Interference in the

judiciary is something different and something to be totally avoided.

In this case, as the Prime Minister outlined, this is the normal course

of events. Just cut and thrust, then? No, not according to the

Attorney-General. The judge in question was so scandalised that it

undermined public confidence in the judiciary. That is envisaged under

the article 10 of the Convention would the guarantee of freedom of

expression carried with its the condition that it could not be done

if it would undermine confidence in the judiciary. The law is there and

has always been there and has not been changed by the contempt of

Court Act past 30 years ago. The Attorney-General has recognised

that the law exists and has taken the view that there is evidence

that the scandalising of the judge was so severe that it undermined

public confidence, therefore he has applied to bring an prosecution

against the individual and his publisher. I enjoyed by by Nigel

Dodds. Should politicians keep out of this and let the judicial system

and the courts run its course? There is an a principle that

politicians should not interfere in the way that judges come to

decisions because that would undermine it the independence of

the judiciary. I do think that politicians should have the right

to criticise on the basis of free speech. However, I think there is

an issue about whether it is up to the individual judge to bring

proceedings. Peter Hain has written this book and there are things

amiss but I don't agree with, but if the judge is there something

libellous in its I believe it should be open to him to bring

proceedings. Should the state in the 21st century be taking this

kind of action? I don't think it should be. As David Davies said

there in 1899 the Privy Council said it was obsolete. Ind the

United States this concept was done away with in the 1940s. Lord to

clock in 1985 said it was obsolete and rarely used. I think it is a

bad principle to have an officer of the states in terms of the judicial

appointment that it also has a Attorney-General to be bringing the

proceedings in this way. I think it's cent at the wrong signal.

There appears to be a difference between how some people in the

legal world here arguing this case compared to barristers who have

given their opinions. The general view I have picked up in

Westminster, and I think it is fair to say even here in Belfast talking

to legal figures, that there is a great sense of caution about

whether this is the right thing for the Attorney-General to be

involving himself in. And it is not often that you get an early day

motion begets immediately 120 MPs signing up to its, which he has got

on this issue. Including former Home Secretaries, former

chancellors, senior backbenchers. It totally cross-party motion. It

was no good for Northern Ireland's and I would say to the Attorney-

General that he should step back, reconsider and withdraw this

misconceived notion which she is bringing to the court. It is up to

the judge to bring libel action if you so which is, and he may well

have a case for that. I think it is wrong for the Office of the

Attorney-General to be used in this way, to bring an action which is

something that is regarded as obsolete in many other

jurisdictions. Do you think it is a storm in a teacup or has it

damaging ramifications for the future given that having a locally

appointed Attorney-General is still relatively new? Title think it has

major ramifications for devolution, but I do think it has some

implications for the reputation and standing of the Office of the

Attorney-General. The Attorney General is a more independent

appointments in Northern Ireland than in England and Wales, were it

is a political point. Here in Northern Ireland it is an

independent position. He is that legal adviser to the executive, but

he has threatened to bring action against apartments and so on.

you back in for another term? remains to be seen. He still has

two years to go. I do think you would be well-advised to

concentrate on the core responsibilities of his office,

which is giving legal advice to the executive and looking after the way

in which the devolved settlement operates rather than getting

involved in this operation, which I don't think has gone down well

anywhere. I think it will damage his reputation more so than

anything else. Thank you for joining us. Tony, let's look at

this issue of public money. That is something that people have given

their opinions on, but it shouldn't be up to the public purse to pay

for this sort of case? The public pay for prosecutions in every case.

But what a libel action not have been the way forward? The judge has

decided not to bring a libel action. It is difficult for a judge to

bring a libel action as it could have far reaching consequences on

the preceding independence of the judiciary. There is no suggestion

that this particular judge has given any approval or encouragement

to the taking up this prosecution. The Attorney-General has taken the

view that there is evidence of a such defamatory material that it

undermines the principle of the independent judiciary. What about

the case undermining the principle of free speech? There is such a

thing as free speech but it has to be constrained. It is even

recognised under article 10 that there is free speech but people are

not allowed to say things that can undermine certain organs of the

state. This is a common lot that has been in place for hundreds of

years and no one has taken a decision to repeal it. Parliament

could do that it did so wished. It is not a question of the cut and

thrust of criticising judges and politicians, that happens on a

daily basis and no one is saying that should not happen. What we're

- what is alleged to have happened here is that there was such gross

defamation that I can amount to a criminal prosecution. The Prime

Minister doesn't agree. He isn't always correct. I'd think it is

improper for the Prime Minister to have expressed the view on the

actions of the judicial officer before the matter has even been

brought to court. I think it was wrong for him to do that and wrong

for parliaments to pass that motion on an action which has not been

brought before the court. I think it is interfering. You are going to

be sitting on the justice committee and they have asked to see the

Attorney-General. What will you be saying? To get back to the centre

of this, it goes to the harder free speech. It is not about

interference with the courts. It is about freedom of speech. I'm sure

judges are up for criticising politicians. Likewise, if there are

issues to be addressed within the judiciary we are elected to do that.

The one concern I do have is that this could potentially cost the

He wants a party of the fringes, the Alliance Party is now at the

heart of government. It is enjoying the most successful period in its

history with an MP and two ministers in the executive. Some

troubled times lie ahead as they are about to lose some of its power.

That will prompt some big decisions for the party. It can be popular to

be among the movers and shakers, colourful, even fashionable. It is

fashionable these days to be in government. Two places in

government or even better. For one Alliance minister this will soon be

a passing fashion. The big players in the executive are cutting the

number of departments by one. is nothing other than cynical

politically motivated manoeuvres to reduce our influence. Those who

think that alliance can be prevented from delivering by

lifting the bar higher clearly don't appreciate our determination

and skill when it comes to overcoming all barriers. When the

minister goes, but will lead to David Ford as the sole minister in

justice, not by right but gifted by the two parties to are now pushing

his party colleague out. How do you feel about being elbowed out of the

way? We will see what happens. What I most care about is insuring that

we do the right thing for the people of Northern Ireland. You're

the one who will have to fall on his sword? I don't see it in those

terms. I see it as doing the right thing for the people of Northern

Ireland's. We have been pure as a party that we have to protect the

mandate that was given to us. are heady days for the Alliance

party with more public representatives than ever before,

all the way from local government to Westminster. With success comes

new challenges. Can't Naomi Long hold her Westminster seat when a

new boundary changes are introduced? Should David Ford

continue as party leader and that any minister in the executive? A

more pressing question for the Alliance party is should it even

stay in the government when Stephen Farry moves aside? What is more

important, principle or pragmatism? It'll be principle, but based on

the realities of politics are Northern Ireland. We won't be

throwing the toys out of the pram. We feel that we deserve the second

post so let's hope we will be able to be accommodated. We want to see

an alliance member making a contribution, but it needs to be on

a clear and fair terms. Pragmatism for me, always. No absolute

certainty amongst the delegates, so would be a speech from the leader

give more of a clue? It happens all over the world but ministers used

their posts. It looks to me as it Stephen is about to establish a

record. He is the first minister anywhere in these islands

threatened with the sack because both he and his party are

successful and what they're aiming to do. That was pretty much it on

this issue. They still have to decide if they stay in government

or walk away. These delegates are very aware when a party like the

Alliance party mixes with the big beasts of politics at Stormont,

these big parties can give, but also sometimes take away.

A I caught up with David Ford. He said he would like to see the

Alliance party break into the big four parties. I asked me that was

realistic. If you look at the trajectory of other parties

compared to ours, it is realistic to say that we are no longer in the

territory with the four parties are bigger significantly than us.

your performance in the two ministries that helps you with

electoral success? Wants to use a minister are you in danger of

slipping back? Naomi Long got the largest swing in the United Kingdom

in 2010. I had only been minister for two weeks! That didn't require

us to be in government to get that victory! There wasn't much talk of

opposition, though. The talk was about what we have achieved bands

about solid work we had done about building assured future. That was

the mood of conference. Clearly there are issues that led about

what will happen in the future of the department and what's affect

that will have on justice. could have used the conference to

say we are pitting a marker down, we will not nominate again for the

Department of Justice. Can we say that one not happen now? You can

say that because that wasn't the issue - you can't say that because

that wasn't the issue of Today. I did put down a strong marker about

saying we should have a strategy on integration. What happens now with

the Ministry once Stephen Farry goes? When you continue in the post

of Justice Minister or would do step aside as party leader and the

calm growth towards the next election? Those are issues that

have to be discussed. I have been asked by journalists this week

because I had been leader for 10 years. When the party is successful

there is confidence in the leadership. We have a coherent

party, we know what we are working for and are going forward together.

They will come a point and we have to decide on changing posts around,

but I personally think the department of justice needs

somebody to be in post for a couple of years to start to get a handle

on how things are going. We have a party with plenty of people with

talent and we are happy to share jobs around the. Thank you very

much. It is time now for our regular look at the political week

and 60 seconds. - in 60 seconds the Attorney General's decision to

begin content proceedings against Peter Hain was widely criticised.

Public money is being used to take this action and the public offices

being used as a vehicle for taking this action and I think that is

wrong. Careful words were demanded at Stormont on whether Edwin Poots

could call Kieran McCarthy a village idiot. The language used

did fall short of the standards I expect and I asked the minister to

apologise. Calm was restored when the Vietnamese Zen master arrived.

The Orange Order got a million pounds to redress the legacy of the

Troubles. It is that the most ambitious project that the Orange

Order has taken on. Last orders for the bride and groom. The Arts

Minister got her rappers mixed up. I was thinking am an EMS, chocolate

or peanut! That is it for this week. The

Attorney-General's contempt it is up in the Royal Courts of Justice