Stormont Executive has failed A5 victims and cost of putting a wrong right is spiralling
The Department for Infrastructure failed to convince the High Court that upgrading the road would not prevent Northern Ireland meeting the net-zero target by 2050, a pledge made in the 2022 Climate Change Act.
Former Stormont Infrastructure Minister John O'Dowd gave the go-ahead for the 53-mile development between Derry and Aughnacloy in October last year, he has since handed over to party colleague Liz Kimmins.
Sinn Fein also voted in favour of the climate act that the High Court now states is incompatible with the current A5 build.
The was a face-off in court between locals and landowners v politicians and bears a remarkable resemblance to the court cases mounted by residents that prevented the building of Casement Park back in 2014.
The initial approval was quashed by a judge following a legal challenge from residents who were concerned about the stadium's size and potential impact on their area.
As a result the build was delayed and costs spiralled, with a huge funding deficit still holding back the project.
Earlier this year the Executive agreed a Programme for Government 2024-2027, which outlines its priorities and is a delivery plan for the remainder of this Assembly mandate.
It included a pledge that: 'Actions will include progressing delivery of the A5 Western Transport Corridor and publishing an annual Action Plan to support the Road Safety Strategy'.
Given the High Court judgment this week it would seem almost impossible to meet that commitment.
Solicitor for Alternative A5 Alliance: Quashing of road upgrade is an "extraordinary accomplishment"
Timing is key as was noted in the ruling , with the judge saying there was a 'failure to properly show consideration of human rights issues in not imposing a time limit for construction'. Time limits for any building works in Northern Ireland are notoriously difficult to pin down.
Perhaps the most startling line of that ruling were the acknowledgement of potential fatalities.
'It is likely that delays in the progression of this scheme will coincide with the occurrence of further loss of life and serious injury on the existing road', said Mr Justice McAlinden.
It is already too late for the 57 people who have died on the stretch of road since 2006.
'I am acutely aware that this decision will bring significant, fresh anguish to the doors of those who have been injured and maimed and those who have lost loved ones as a result of road traffic accidents on the existing A5 road,' the judge added.
They include Marie O'Brien, whose daughter Caoimhe died in a crash on the A5 in 2016 — she described the ruling as a 'punch in the gut' — and the family of Tyrone Gaelic footballer John Rafferty, 21, killed in a crash in October 2022.
The A5 Enough is Enough group set up after his death said the road is 'a death trap'.
The judge in this case could only rule on the law in front of him and not the emotions of the case, this was clear in his judgment.
The ruling leaves the upgrade of the road in limbo, with no clear path as to how the minister can deliver the pledge to upgrade the road.
It will require a community to look inward and decide what they prioritise in terms of the future and if those who oppose the build now consider what they would accept in terms of a future upgrade.
But it also raises questions about the ability of Stormont to deliver.
The A5 is still a dangerous road, the cost of upgrading it — like the Casement build — will only increase with further delays, and yet as of now the Executive and minister are on a road to nowhere and will need to have a serious rethink about how to deliver on this key PfG pledge.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BreakingNews.ie
an hour ago
- BreakingNews.ie
Gavin Pepper agrees to abide by certain orders but denies filming finance firm boss's son
Dublin city councillor Gavin Pepper has told the High Court he is prepared to abide by orders prohibiting him from attending or filming outside the homes of staff of credit servicing and asset management firm Pepper Finance Corporation. Cllr Pepper, an independent who was elected in the Ballymun/Finglas area, has denied he shot footage for social media outside Pepper managing director Ian Wigglesworth's west Dublin home or of the businessman's son, who has special needs. Advertisement He told the court he and his partner have a child with special needs themselves and had every sympathy with someone in the same situation. He also said that when he was outside the Wigglesworth home, he did not engage with Mr Wigglesworth's son, and it was the child who approached him while he was talking on the phone to his partner. On Tuesday, Mr Wigglesworth and Pepper were granted an interim injunction preventing the councillor from attending the Wigglesworth home or filming and watching him and his family or from publishing home addresses of Pepper employees. That application was made ex parte - meaning only the Wigglesworth/Pepper side was represented - and on Thursday Mr Pepper appeared himself, saying he wished to be given time to get legal representation. Advertisement Cllr Pepper, who is also a taxi driver, of Plunkett Green, Finglas, Dublin, was also required to remove social media posts which contain footage of videoing which took place outside Mr Wigglesworth's home. Brian Conroy SC, for Mr Wigglesworth and Pepper Finance, said Cllr Pepper has a well-established association with the far right and social media posts promoting far-right ideas. Mr Conroy said that while Mr Pepper had since Tuesday agreed to some of the orders, he did not seem prepared to delete certain social media posts or not attend homes of other Pepper employees. Cllr Pepper told Mr Justice Brian Cregan he was prepared to comply with most of the orders made on Tuesday, but he said a number of allegations had been made against him which were not true, including that he had recorded the Wigglesworth family. Advertisement However, certain orders now sought in relation to deleting posts would interfere with his role as a democratically elected representative and his constitutional right to free speech. He needed time to get legal representation, he said. Mr Conroy said his side was particularly concerned in relation to certain posts already up in relation to Mr Wigglesworth and his family. These and other posts were clearly threatening and crossed the line in relation to freedom of expression, counsel said. His claims about Mr Wigglesworth's son "rang hollow" when there was one video in which Cllr Pepper is clearly outside the Wigglesworth home and there is clear identification of a minor who is a member of that family. Advertisement Asked by the judge if he was prepared to abide by the order not to attend outside the homes of other Pepper employees, he said he was. Asked if he was prepared to take down four specific posts, Cllr Pepper said he wanted time to challenge it "because they are making out that I am a bad guy". He did not believe "anything I said was defamation". The judge said he had an absolute right to express any 'understandable grievances about vulture funds", but the business was saying some of the posts clearly crossed the line. Pepper Finance Corporation do not think they can be called a vulture fund, the court heard. Cllr Pepper agreed to a suggestion by the judge that he would take down the posts until the case returns before the court in October, when he will also have a chance to get a solicitor to argue his case in that respect. Advertisement Business Couple allege Pepper Finance is pursuing them over... Read More He also said he did not accept that he was some sort of bad person, and he thought looking for extra orders in this way was unfair before he got representation. The judge said he would have the opportunity to address what he felt was tarnishing his name and an unfair portrayal of him so far when he swears an affidavit. The judge said he would make an order in relation to taking four posts of June 12, July 24, 25 and 27 within seven days of making the order. He also made similar orders on Tuesday in relation to other Pepper employees. The orders must be complied with within seven days of them being formally made. He also gave both sides liberty to apply to the vacation courts should anything arise between now and October.
BreakingNews.ie
7 hours ago
- BreakingNews.ie
X wants to appeal High Court's dismissal of Coimisiún na Meán case, court hears
Elon Musk's X wants to appeal a High Court ruling dismissing its action against Ireland's broadcasting and online media regulator, Coimisiún na Meán, over its online safety code. X International Unlimited Company, which operates X, formerly known as Twitter, had alleged that the media regulator engaged in 'regulatory overreach' in its approach to restrictions on certain video content. Advertisement Coimisiún na Meán's online safety code, which was adopted last October and came into effect earlier this month, sets out legally binding rules for video-sharing platforms. It is aimed at protecting the public, and especially children, from harmful online content. The social media giant had sought a High Court order compelling the commission to quash its decision to adopt certain sections of the code. It also sought the court to overturn the commission's decision to apply the code to its platform. In a judgment, Mr Justice Conleth Bradley this week refused reliefs sought by X. Advertisement The judge dismissed several arguments made by the platform in the proceedings, including that the code was out of step with European legislation. At the High Court on Thursday, senior counsel Declan McGrath, for X and appearing with barrister Emma Synnott, said he was instructed to seek permission to appeal the court's judgment. In some High Court cases, permission must be granted by the court to appeal a judgment. Noting the judge's provisional view that the costs of the High Court action be awarded to the commission, Mr McGrath said he would not be making any submissions on the matter. Mr Justice Bradley set a date in October for the hearing of X's application for permission to appeal.
Spectator
10 hours ago
- Spectator
Palestine Action shouldn't be unbanned
Yesterday, the High Court allowed Palestine Action to challenge the Home Secretary's decision to ban it. Since its proscription, under terrorism legislation, it has been an offence to be a member of the group, or to invite support for it. While it was not a final determination, the High Court hearing was revealing. Mr Justice Chamberlain's decision followed judicial consideration of a file of 'closed material' – evidence not disclosed to the claimant – and an open hearing which was reported in the press The judge ruled that Palestine Action could proceed to bring a judicial review; but only on two specific grounds: a human rights claim under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and an argument that the Home Secretary should have consulted the group before issuing the proscription order. The court rejected the claimant's remaining six grounds as not reasonably arguable and the ban on the group will remain in force in the interim. During the most recent proceedings the court was told that more than 170 people had been arrested since the ban on Palestine Action took effect, and that the police had been somewhat overzealous in their enforcement efforts. In particular, it was said that a man in Leeds had been detained for holding up a copy of an article in Private Eye that had lampooned the ban, and that others had been arrested for what was described as a seated, silent protest. The issues around freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association, under the ECHR, are likely to found the main basis of Palestine Action's grounds of action when the full case is heard in the autumn. The discussion surrounding the proscription of Palestine Action is often framed through the lens of freedom of speech. Arguably, that should not be seen as the central issue. In a debate in the House of Lords last week, the security minister, Lord Hanson, explained very concisely the rationale for the proscription order against Palestine Action: 'Palestine Action has perpetrated attacks in which it has forced entry onto premises armed with weapons and smashed up property, and members of the organisation have used serious violence against responding individuals.' The Terrorism Act 2000 allows the Home Secretary to proscribe a group if she believes it is 'concerned in terrorism.' The legislation defines terrorism to include not only violence against individuals intended to influence the government or intimidate the public (or a section of the public), but also actions involving serious damage to property. Palestine Action is the first group to be proscribed based on that part of the definition. When Yvette Cooper informed Parliament of her intention to ban Palestine Action, members of the group had just broken into RAF Brize Norton in the early hours of 20 June and caused damage to aircraft – with repair costs estimated at up to £7 million. Cooper also emphasised that this was not the first time members of the group had taken direct action against targets affecting UK national security. Previous incidents attributed to the group included attacks on Thales in Glasgow, Instro Precision in Kent, and Elbit Systems UK in Bristol. The Glasgow attack reportedly caused significant financial damage to components essential for submarines and seriously alarmed staff who were present at the time. Cooper said that in late 2023, Palestine Action released what it called The Underground Manual. The document encouraged the formation of cells, offered practical guidance on how to carry out actions against private companies and government buildings on behalf of Palestine Action. It linked to a website featuring a map of specific targets across the UK. These activities are not just expressions of free speech and go rather further than simple public disorder. Rather, they fall much more within the realm of violent direct action. It is said that the proscription of Palestine Action could have a chilling effect on other people who wish simply to engage in peaceful protest against the war in Gaza. Whatever your views on the conflict, it is evident that people should be free to support Palestinian rights and self-determination. Yet there are ways to do this without being a member of or a supporter of a group like Palestine Action. The Home Secretary makes a reasonable point when she argues that we should not conflate its activities with reasonable pro-Palestinian advocacy. There is absolutely no need for peaceful protestors to associate themselves with a group concerned in unlawful acts involving violence. I have previously argued that, if anything, the police have been unusually lenient in policing pro-Palestine protests, allowing frequent, thinly veiled calls for the destruction of Israel – such as the now-apparently normalized chant, 'from the river to the sea.' Those who have witnessed the frequent marches in London might reasonably conclude that protesters – at least those simply calling for freedom for Palestine and an end to the war in Gaza – should have little to fear from the Metropolitan Police, provided that constables are properly briefed about the extent of the order banning Palestine Action. With Keir Starmer now expected to recognise a Palestinian state in September, tensions over the Israel–Gaza conflict will likely remain high when the case returns to court in November. Given the public evidence now available, it seems hard to argue that proscription of Palestine Action was not a legitimate response to their recent activities. Damage to national security infrastructure – such as aircraft and submarine components – is among the gravest forms of property damage imaginable, and should clearly be seen as 'serious' for the purpose of the terrorism legislation. The decision to hold a full hearing is likely to be seen as a blow to the Home Secretary. Clearly, the High Court will have to carefully consider the claimant's submissions under the ECHR. But it would be particularly unfortunate if it reached the view that human rights laws could allow those who engage in, or support, violent and destructive activity to act with impunity.
