THE BILLY Wright inquiry will not seek to have Ian Paisley jnr jailed for refusing to reveal a source because he wants imprisonment too much, the High Court heard yesterday.
Lawyers for the tribunal made the claim as it was revealed that the DUP Assembly member has made two attempts to be released from a pledge of confidentiality he gave to an officer who told him about an alleged file destruction policy within the Northern Ireland Prison Service.
A hearing on any punishment for contempt of a High Court order to disclose the informant’s identity was also told that Mr Paisley was in a “modest financial position” and already faces a bill of more than £35,000 for the legal proceedings.
The North Antrim MLA, who attended court along with his father, former DUP leader Ian Paisley, is expected to learn his fate today.
He has refused to co-operate with a direction to name the prison officer he says told him about emergency moves to scrap up to 5,600 files after Wright, leader of the Loyalist Volunteer Force, was shot dead inside the Maze jail in December 1997.
The inquiry examining claims of collusion surrounding the paramilitary chief’s assassination obtained the order against him in April.
But Mr Paisley insists he cannot break a pledge of confidentiality given to his informant.
John Larkin QC, for the inquiry, confirmed it would not be seeking the sanction of having the politician jailed.
The barrister said: “Mr Paisley appears to want it to much.
“Brandishing custody before Mr Paisley appears to be like brandishing a whip before Max Mosley.”
With the option of a daily fine also ruled out, the inquiry has instead urged Mr Justice Gillen to impose a one-off financial penalty.
The DUP representative’s barrister, Joseph Aiken, rejected Mr Larkin’s claims by stressing: “Mr Paisley did not set his face to try and get sent to prison.”
Mr Aiken also argued that it was untrue to suggest the inquiry has not heard from others about the file destruction policy.
During submissions he revealed that his client had twice gone to his source in an effort to be able to comply with the order.
“My instructions are two attempts have been made to seek permission for Mr Paisley to be released from his duty of confidentiality,” Mr Aiken told the court.
“For reasons given by the individual at the outset, that permission has been declined.”
Urging the court against imposing a heavy fine, the barrister set out the Assembly member’s background as a career politician and former Stormont minister who came from a “famous and high-profile family in Northern Ireland”.
He said: “But perhaps contrary to public perception he has what your Lordship might accept is a modest financial position given his public prominence and importance of the roles he has carried out.”
Mr Aiken said it had not been feasible for Mr Paisley to appeal the original ruling because he has personally funded the costs of the court case.
“These proceedings have already had a massive financial impact on Mr Paisley,” he stressed.
“The legal bill before the contempt proceedings that Mr Paisley faces is in excess of £35,000.
“He is going to be out that money for protecting the identity of the source. He’s obviously going to face another legal bill for these proceedings.”