A LAWYER representing former Northern secretary Peter Hain has stated that the British Labour MP disputes “absolutely” that critical comments he made about a Belfast High Court judge amounted to contempt of court.
Barrister David Dunlop also queried in the Divisional Court in Belfast yesterday whether the offence of scandalising a judge, of which Mr Hain and his book publishers Biteback Publishing are accused, still existed.
The case brought by the North’s attorney general John Larkin has become something of a political cause celebre. In an all-party petition, more than 120 MPs have urged Mr Larkin to drop the case against Mr Hain. Earlier this month in the House of Commons British prime minister David Cameron said that such matters should be kept “as far as possible out of the courts”.
The case relates to critical remarks about Northern Ireland judge Sir Paul Girvan (now Lord Justice Girvan) made by Mr Hain in his memoir, Outside In. This referred in particular to 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”.
In January, shortly after publication of the book, the North’s Lord Chief Justice, Sir Declan Morgan, accused Mr Hain, the current Labour shadow secretary for Wales, of making “unwarranted and wholly inappropriate remarks” about Lord Justice Girvan.
Mr Hain in a number of interviews defended his comments.
Ahead of yesterday’s hearing the attorney general, Mr Larkin, in bringing the case against Mr Hain and his publishers, argued that passages in the book “constitute unwarranted abuse of a judge in his judicial capacity that undermines the administration of justice in this jurisdiction, and consequently constitute a contempt of court”.
According to the attorney general, the alleged contempt of court was aggravated by public comments made by Mr Hain since the book was published.
At the time Biteback Publishing’s managing director, Iain Dale, responded that he was advised that proceedings for contempt for criticising judges have been considered obsolete in England and Wales since the end of the 19th century.
Mr Larkin, at a preliminary hearing in Belfast yesterday, said it was important to begin by emphasising “that criticism of judges or of judicial decisions does not in itself constitute contempt of court. The fair criticism of judges and judicial decisions is not only quite clearly a right; there are also occasions when there may be a duty to do it”.
Mr Larkin said the case was about seeking to protect public confidence in the administration of justice. This was not to be “equated with a blind or misplaced faith”, he said.
He added: “Citizens are entitled to have confidence in the administration of justice; they should not be improperly deprived of this entitlement or have it endangered.”
Mr Dunlop, on behalf of the publishers and Mr Hain, who was not in court yesterday, said the case was “highly significant in terms of the implications there are for freedom of expression and free speech”.
The full hearing, which is expected to last about four days, was set for June 19th. Yesterday’s hearing was before Lord Justice Higgins, Mr Justice Gillen and Mr Justice Weatherup.
