Residents wrongly conflated with 'dissidents', court told

The residents of the Garvaghy Road in Portadown should not be wrongly identified with or held responsible for the potential criminal conduct by dissident republicans opposed to an Orange Order parade along the route, the High Court in Belfast has been told.

Portadown District of the Orange Order is attempting to overturn the decision by Northern Ireland Secretary of State Chris Bryant to ban its parade, which had been due to take place on Sunday 27 September.

It could not proceed after thousands of protesters blocked the route and Mr Bryant exercised his statutory powers to ban it after a 13-day stand-off.

The Orange Order has accused him and PSNI Chief Constable Jon Boutcher of giving into threats of violence and "mob rule".

On the second day of the legal challenge a barrister for the Garvaghy Road residents told the court that the PSNI had put on record that those who took part in the protest had done so peacefully.

She then referred to the contents of a PSNI intelligence assessment provided to Mr Bryant which said it was "possible" that dissident republicans had access to firearms and "possible" that they could be used to attack police officers if they attempted to clear the road.

Denise Kiley KC said that in its application to the court, the Orange Order had wrongly conflated the residents with the "dissident republicans" referred to in the intelligence assessment.

"It is not accepted that the residential community of the Garvaghy Road area is to be identified with or held responsible for the potential criminal conduct of any fringe elements, or bad actors," she told the court.

"A residential community's genuine objection to a procession through its area and the exercise of individuals within it of their own convention rights cannot be reduced to the unlawful acts of others."

A lawyer for the Orange Order insisted that was not the case.

Richard McConkey said that in his submissions yesterday, he had been "at pains" to distinguish the difference between peaceful protesters protesting lawfully, dissident republicans and people blocking the road unlawfully.

"Residents who are protesting lawfully have the same rights as anyone else in the country," he said.

Ms Kiley pointed out that the PSNI intelligence assessment also stated that loyalist paramilitaries were supporting the parade and that increasing numbers of loyalists were likely to go to Portadown, with a possibility of disorder at Drumcree Church.

The barrister said it would be wrong to say that should impact the rights of those members of the Orange Order engaged in peaceful protest at Drumcree Church, just as it was wrong to suggest that the possible activities of a fringe element on the Garvaghy Road should impact on the rights of residents to take part in peaceful protest.

A lawyer for the Chief Constable told the court that the PSNI had nothing to add to a reference made yesterday to "consideration" being given to "the feelings" of the Provisional IRA on the dispute.

In response to questions from the judge, Peter Coll KC said that issue was not part of the legal challenge and was not a matter for this court.

Speaking to the media afterwards, Breandan Mac Connaith of the Garvaghy Road Residents’ Coalition said the police had not been able to provide any evidence that there were guns in the area.

"Let’s talk about the difference between possibility and probability, they are two distinct things.

"They’re saying that there was a possibility, they didn’t say there was a likelihood, and they didn’t say it was an actual fact, It was supposition, so let’s kill the supposition.

"The media was there in force for the space of a fortnight, the only persons you seen with guns on the Garvaghy Road were PSNI officers and they mingled among our community without any threat, without any threat being posed to them.

"They didn’t come in with heavy riot gear or protective armour or anything else. They mingled with our community, so where was the threat to them? Because it wasn’t coming from our community," he said.

The legal representative for Portadown District of the Orange Order insisted that the PSNI assessment had proven that there was a "threat to life" and that the police had given into "mob rule".

Jamie Bryson also confirmed that a key aim of the legal challenge was to flush out into the public domain the police intelligence assessment which mentioned consideration of the "feelings of the PIRA" and the possibility of firearms being used by dissident republicans.

"We’ve already won, we’ve already won in what needed to be out in the public domain is in the public domain.

"The world can now see that 35 peaceful lawful Orangemen were denied their legal rights upheld by a court and the basis upon which was that denial, that has been achieved."

Earlier, a lawyer for the Northern Ireland Secretary of State told the hearing that the decision to ban the Orange Order parade along the Garvaghy Road reflected the reality of the situation and the fact that the policing situation had changed.

Mr Bryant made the decision after a request from Mr Boutcher to review the original determination by the Parades Commission to permit a parade along the route for the first time in 28 years.

While the PSNI had initially told the Parades Commission that there was no intelligence to suggest a risk of public disorder if there was a parade, that position had changed.

Barrister Philip McAteer referred to the intelligence assessment provided by the Chief Constable on 9 October, the day Mr Bryant banned the parade.

He told the court that the PSNI’s assessment at that time was that all available, lawful and proportionate options to facilitate completion of the parade had been exhausted.

It added that any remaining options would require a substantial public order intervention "which would carry an unacceptable risk of serious injury, disorder and a wider contagion affect across Northern Ireland".

"The decision reflected the reality of the situation. It was to mitigate risks and avoid public disorder and crime," Mr McAteer said.

The judge said he hopes to deliver his ruling early next week.