Democratic Unionist MLA Ian Paisley Jnr threatened today to defy a High Court judge who ordered him to reveal a source that gave him evidence on the murder of Loyalist Volunteer Force (LVF) leader Billy Wright
A public inquiry investigating the murder of Wright, shot dead in 1997 by republicans in the top security Maze prison, launched a legal challenge against Mr Paisley.
Today, the High Court in Belfast ruled that the inquiry was right to demand Mr Paisley reveal the identity of a prison officer who told him that prison authorities ordered the destruction of files after the killing.
Mr Justice John Gillen today said he was satisfied that the inquiry had provided a clear and compelling case and ordered Mr Paisley to provide the information to the inquiry within 17 days.
Mr Paisley, an elected member of the Northern Ireland Assembly, said he would now consider his legal options.
But he insisted he would not reveal his source, despite the ultimate risk of a prison sentence.
“Contempt of court is punishable by imprisonment,” said Mr Paisley.
“I have said from day one, and everyone knows this, even the court, that I cannot and will not give over the name of this individual,” he said.
“So whether I, if you like, face the music today or whether I face it after a further appeal or even a House of Lords hearing, the issue remains the same, which is my source is protected.
“My source came to me, I gave that person my word. I will not be breaking that word.”
Mr Paisley had said he was told of a policy within the prison service to destroy files ahead of the introduction of data protection legislation.
It was claimed thousands of documents were destroyed after Wright was shot dead by prisoners from the republican Irish National Liberation Army (INLA) who climbed across a jail wing to attack him with guns smuggled into the prison.
A public inquiry was subsequently launched and is examining allegations of an official cover-up over the killing.
The High Court heard that in June 2007, Mr Paisley wrote to Billy Wright’s father providing him with information that the Northern Ireland Prison Service had employed people to destroy around 5,600 files before the Data Protection Act came into effect.
This information, which was provided by a “senior prison officer”, claimed the decision to destroy the files was “taken at the top”.
Inquiry chairman Lord MacLean believed the identity of the prison officer was of great importance to the inquiry.
He said it would be in the public interest for Mr Paisley to provide the name to the Inquiry.
The legal challenge which followed to force Mr Paisley to surrender the information heard evidence from Northern Ireland First Minister and DUP leader Peter Robinson.
Mr Robinson said that if an assurance of confidentiality was given by a public representative, and subsequently breached, the public would not come forward to give information again.
This could, he said, undermine the ability of politicians to challenge the Government on matters which might, as a result, remain hidden.
Mr Justice Gillen said confidentiality had usually been confined to journalists, doctors or priests who owed a duty to their sources, patients or parishioners.
He added: “There is much to be said in favour of the argument that for a democratic and elected representative of the people the public interest in the preservation of the duty of confidentiality is at least as great even though it is not enshrined in legislation.” The judge considered if the Inquiry had balanced the right of freedom of expression and the interests of justice.
He decided the alleged destruction of files would play a central part in the Inquiry’s efforts to determine whether or not a wrongful act or omission by the prison authorities played a role in Wright’s death.
Mr Justice Gillen said today he backed Lord MacLean’s assertion that revealing the source to the Inquiry did “meet a pressing social need and is proportionate to the legitimate aim which this Inquiry is pursuing”.
The judge concluded that requiring Mr Paisley Jnr to provide the name or other identifying information was “measured and justified when set against the weight of the freedom of expression which must be accorded to public representatives”.
Mr Paisley later said: “Whilst I am disappointed that he did not find in my favour and importantly protect the rights of constituents and parliamentarians, I am not entirely surprised by the judgment.
“I now have 17 days to consider and weigh up the options available to me including the option of an appeal to the High Court.
“Mr Justice Gillen did indicate to the court today that if I pursue my right to appeal, he has already made arrangements for that case to be fast-tracked.
“I will now weigh carefully the options available to me as the matters which are at stake are constitutionally very significant and pose a significant threat to the rights of constituents and public representatives in performing their duty.
“I have already made my view clear to the court that I cannot and will not reveal the identity of my source and therefore I am faced ultimately with the threat of a contempt hearing and punishment of imprisonment.
“I do not believe that public interests are served either for constituents or indeed, the Billy Wright Tribunal, by jailing me over this matter.” Mr Paisley added: “I think the public would be rightly outraged at such an occurrence.”
PA