NORTHERN IRELAND Assembly member Ian Paisley jnr was facing a £50,000-plus bill yesterday for refusing to reveal the name of a confidential source.
The North Antrim representative, who was fined £5,000 in Belfast High Court yesterday for defying a court order compelling him to unmask his informant, acknowledged he stood to lose at least 10 times that amount when legal costs were factored in.
The son of former Northern Ireland first minister Ian Paisley snr was found in contempt of court by Mr Justice Gillen for not passing on the identity of a prison officer to a public inquiry investigating the murder of loyalist paramilitary Billy Wright inside the Maze prison in 1997.
The officer, a constituent of the Democratic Unionist MLA, had told him about a file destruction policy within the prison service in the wake of the killing of the LVF leader by INLA inmates, and indicated that the practice may not have been above board.
While he escaped a jail term, the one time Stormont junior minister, who commands a salary of about £55,000 as an MLA and agriculture committee chair, admitted the court had dealt him a “financial kick in the teeth”.
“I think it’s a very rare commodity in the world today that someone in public life is prepared to keep their word,” he said, giving his reaction outside court flanked by his father.
In an intriguing sub-plot, Mr Paisley also heavily criticised the inquiry’s lead lawyer John Larkin QC, who yesterday claimed the MLA would relish a term in jail because it would further his political career.
The clash is potentially significant because Mr Larkin has been earmarked by the DUP/Sinn Féin-led Stormont administration as Northern Ireland’s attorney general in-waiting for when justice powers are finally devolved from Westminster.
When Mr Paisley was asked about Mr Larkin taking on the role, he cryptically said: “A lot of things could happen.”
On top of the £5,000 fine, the father of four was ordered to pay a £3,000 contribution to the costs of the inquiry team.
This will be added to his own legal fees, which sat at £35,000 before the contempt case, with that hearing’s subsequent costs still to be added.
Finding him in contempt, Justice Gillen said the public interest in knowing the name of the prison officer outweighed the pledge of confidentiality Mr Paisley had given his source.
“It is a recipe for legal anarchy for individuals to pick and choose with impunity those laws they will obey and those they will defy,” he said.
During a hearing on Monday, Mr Larkin said he was was not seeking a custodial sentence for the MLA because: “Mr Paisley appears to want it too much.”
To emphasise his point, the lawyer then made humorous reference to Formula One supremo Max Mosley’s indulgences in sexual bondage sessions.
“Brandishing custody before Mr Paisley appears to be like brandishing a whip before Max Mosley,” he said.