Parades Commission (Hansard, 7 June 2000)

§ Mr. Ingram

To date there have been five occasions when applications for judicial review have been made on determinations made by the Parades Commission:

1. Ormeau Road parade on 13 July 1998:

(a) The Commission's decision not to impose route restrictions on the Orange Order parade was the subject of an application for judicial review on 7 July 1998. The grounds of the application were that, in not prohibiting the parade from parading on the Lower Ormeau Road as it had done in relation to previous parades, the Commission had exceeded its statutory powers. It was argued that the functions of the Commission were the balancing of local interests, and that the meaning of "community" in the Public Processions Act 1998 was confined to the people living in the area through which it was proposed that the parade should pass. The Commission could not, therefore, come to a different conclusion in relation to the 13 July parade if, as it was bound to do, it restricted itself to local considerations.
(b) The application was dismissed. The decision, when appealed, was upheld.
(c) No substantive hearing.

2. Apprentice Boys Parade in Dunloy on 8 August 1998:

(a) The Commission's decision not to permit the Dunloy Apprentice Boys to parade through the village of Dunloy was the subject of an application for judicial review on 6 August 1998. The grounds of the application were, among others, that the Commission had failed to distinguish the various groups which are commonly described as the 'loyal orders' and had imposed an obligation on those loyal orders to engage with the local community. This, it was argued, had fettered the Apprentice Boys discretion.
(b) The application was dismissed.
(c) No substantive hearing.

3. Parkmount Junior LOL No. 150 parade in Portadown on 29 May 1999:

(a) The Commission's decision not to impose conditions on the parade along a section of the lower end of Garvaghy Road in Portadown was the subject of an application for judicial review on 27 May 1999. The grounds for the application were that in deciding not to impose conditions the Commission had not acted in accordance with its own procedures.
(b) Leave to apply was not granted. The applicant appealed the decision and the Court of Appeal subsequently granted leave and heard and determined the application.
(c) The judgment found that the Commission had taken into account relevant factors, and had not taken into account irrelevant factors, and that the decision to impose no restrictions was lawful, procedurally proper and reasonable in the circumstances.

4. Long March Parade on 3 July 1999 (Lurgan to Portadown):

(a) The Commission's decision to re-route that part of the march notified to pass through Lurgan was the subject of an application for leave to apply for a judicial review on 2 July 1999. The grounds for the application were that the Commission had not complied with its own procedures in failing to consult with the organiser of the march in order to facilitate mediation.
(b) The court considered that the Commission had not acted "in a way which was clearly outside its powers or contrary to its prescribed procedure". The application was refused. The applicant appealed the decision on 2 November 1999. A preliminary hearing was held on 8 November 1999, and the substantive hearing on 1 December 1999. The appeal was dismissed.
(c) Dismissed on invitation of appellant's counsel.

5. St. Patrick's Day parades in Kilkeel on 17 March 2000:

(a) The Commission's decision to permit parades by two nationalist bands to proceed along their notified route was the subject for an application for a judicial review on 16 March 284W 2000. The ground for the application was that the Commission had failed to comply with its procedures in not consulting widely enough to gain sufficient information on which to base its decision. It had therefore failed to take into account previous disorder in relation to the parade, and to consider the adverse impact of the parade on community relations, and had not advised anyone that "they were minded to alter the status which had existed for over 20 years".
(b) The judge agreed, in view of the time constraints, that he would deal with both the leave application, and if this were successful, the substantive hearing. The Court held that the Commission had not acted outside its powers or contrary to its procedures, and the application was dismissed.
(c) No substantive hearing.