FORMER NORTHERN secretary Peter Hain said it was “a victory for freedom of speech”.
The North’s Attorney General John Larkin said it was “victory for the administration of justice”.
They were giving their response to the outcome of a High Court case, in which they had clashed.
Many MPs sided with Mr Hain in the case, which relates to comments he made in his memoir, Outside In.
Mr Hain and Mr Larkin, opponents in what has become something of a political and legal cause celebre, offered different interpretations of the settlement of the case in which the British Labour MP was accused of “scandalising” a Belfast High Court judge.
It took two adjournments yesterday in front of Lord Justice Higgins, Mr Justice Gillen and Mr Justice Weatherup before the matter was finally settled, with both sides expressing satisfaction at the result.
The case triggered great interest because it was viewed as a spat between the legal system, as represented by Mr Larkin, and those who make the law, as represented by House of Commons MP Mr Hain. British prime minister David Cameron had expressed misgivings about the case being taken against Mr Hain, as did DUP Minister for Finance Sammy Wilson, a member of the Northern Executive which Mr Larkin advises.
In the book, published by Biteback Publishing, also a defendant in the proceedings, Mr Hain took issue with a 2006 judicial review case heard by Lord Justice Girvan regarding the appointment of Bertha MacDougall as the North’s Interim Victims Commissioner. He ruled that her appointment was made for “improper political purpose”.
Mr Hain portrayed the judge as being “off his rocker” in arriving at that ruling.
In January, shortly after publication of the memoir, the North’s Lord Chief Justice, Sir Declan Morgan, accused Mr Hain of making “unwarranted and wholly inappropriate remarks” about Lord Justice Girvan.
Mr Hain defended his position – on one occasion, as referred to by Mr Larkin yesterday, describing the Lord Chief Justice’s complaint as “baloney”.
This in turn resulted in Mr Hain and Biteback Publishing facing contempt proceedings. A full four-day hearing was scheduled to take place in Belfast next month but a letter of clarification from Mr Hain sent to Mr Larkin this week provided a speedier and cheaper resolution of the matter yesterday.
In the letter Mr Hain made clear that he “certainly never intended” to question Lord Justice Girvan’s motivation “or his wider capabilities” as a judge”. “I simply disagreed with – and was exasperated by – the way he dealt with that particular case, coming as it did in the middle of immensely difficult political negotiations to achieve the final democratic peace settlement,” he wrote.
It was also agreed that when the paperback edition of Outside In is published in September, a footnote will be written on the offending page – which won’t be altered – directing readers to an appendix containing Mr Hain’s letter of clarification to Mr Larkin about Lord Justice Girvan, as read out in court yesterday.
There was no apology from Mr Hain or Biteback Publishing.
Mr Hain was not in court but in a statement he said the outcome was “a victory for freedom of speech”. He described the decision to take the case as astonishing. “In September we will be publishing the paperback edition of Outside In without changing in any way the section that gave offence to some in the Northern Ireland judiciary.”
He urged that the contempt offence of “scandalising a judge” be “confined permanently to history”.
Outside the court Mr Larkin said: “It is a victory for the administration of justice and it is important to point out that had Mr Hain provided the explanation and clarification which he now has . . . we simply would not have been here,” he said.
Attacks on the “motivation of judges” could not be permitted as that would tend to undermine public confidence, he added.
“I do emphasise that it would have been so much better if instead of saying ‘baloney’ in response to the Lord Chief Justice that Mr Hain had given the measured, appropriate response that he now has,” said Mr Larkin. He also justified maintaining the offence of scandalising a judge, stating that it was not obsolete and was used in a number of jurisdictions.
