A bid by the Democratic Unionist Party to have the election of Mr David Trimble as Northern Ireland's First Minister and Mr Mark Durkin as Deputy First Minister declared unlawful was rejected in the High Court in Belfast today.
|
|
Mr David Trimble and Mr Mark Durkan. Photograph: Reuters.
|
DUP deputy leader Mr Peter Robinson took the case to court after Mr Trimble and Mr Durkin were elected on November 6th - outside a six-week time limit set for their re-election.
An attempt by the Assembly to elect them four days earlier, on November 2nd, and within the time limit failed.
The DUP pressed for Northern Ireland Secretary Dr John Reid to call immediate elections for a new Assembly.
He waited until the delayed election of Mr Trimble and Mr Durkan and decided there was no need for Northern Ireland to go to the polls for fresh elections before May 1st 2003.
In the Northern Ireland High Court Mr Justice Kerr rejected a challenge to Dr Reid's decision.
In a reserved judgment he said: "The Belfast Agreement was designed to achieve political progress on the basis of a broad consensus between the political parties.
"It is inimical to that concept to impose an inflexible time limit on one of the crucial elements of the plan for government in Northern Ireland."
He said provision of a government of Northern Ireland would be "frustrated" if a time limit contained in one section of the Northern Ireland Act was to be applied in a "rigid and inflexible fashion".
The judge added: "I consider that this is an example of those cases where public policy demands latitude in the application of the time limits."
Turning to the Secretary of State's decision not to call fresh Assembly elections immediately after the failed attempt to elect Mr Trimble and Mr Durkan, the judge said he accepted submissions that Dr Reid has "wide discretion".
The election of the two ministers only went through after members of the Alliance Party and Woman's Coalition re-designated themselves as unionists in the Assembly to provide the required cross-community support.
Speaking outside the court Mr Robinson said he was not surprised by the judgment but planned to fight on.
He said: "I have to say we had factored in this case the likely scenario for this judge and you can anticipate there will be an appeal."
He added: "I consider it was a perverse judgment."
PA