The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, a product of the Good Friday Agreement, is finding that a week is a long time in politics.
Seven days ago, following the publication of a Westminster report into the commission's work, three of its former members went public with serious concerns about the rights body's direction.
In addition, the commission is accused of compromising its independence through its handling of a case linked to the controversial Holy Cross primary school protest.
The organisation created by the agreement is now fighting against claims that it risks undermining the ethos of the accord. Chief Commissioner Brice Dickson spoke to Steven McCaffery
HOLY CROSS:
The commission is funding a case taken by the parent of a Holy Cross pupil who wished to legally challenge the policing of the protest. Without that parent's knowledge you wrote in December 2001 to the then chief constable, Sir Ronnie Flanagan, who was the subject of the legal action, informing him that you did not believe the parent had a case and naming three commissioners who felt the same.
Surely this was a fundamental breach of trust and compromised the commission's independence.
I reject those points. (Firstly) cases that we support are discussed at different levels within the commission all the time, without the applicant knowing.
On the independence point, when the chief constable replied to that letter I put it before the commission, as I would any letter from a prominent organisation or person, and we dealt with it as we would any such letter. We asked ourselves, what do we do with this?
The point was quickly made that we don't have criteria for deciding whether to – and his letter was all about withdrawing funding in the case – we don't have criteria for that so we couldn't discuss it.
I readily went along with that and the matter was deferred until we had drawn up criteria.
Minutes from that meeting suggest you proposed dropping the case because of its cost.
I put before the meeting the letter from the chief constable and invited discussion of it.
My view had always been, as with any case, we need to be extremely careful with how we are spending our money.
But Madden and Finucane solicitors, representing the parent, say that no bill of costs was available at that time.
No. That's right. But, I mean, we all know how expensive court cases can be, especially if they drag on and senior counsel are involved.
To recap, in December 2001 you wrote a letter informing the chief constable that, in your opinion, the Holy Cross parent you were funding had no case. He wrote back on March 21 2002 saying his lawyers were "anxious" to use your letter in court and he suggested that you remove funding for the case.
At the subsequent commission meeting, on April 8, you propose dropping the case.
You now suggest your proposal was based on a cost issue – but are you open to the accusation that you were unduly influenced by the chief constable?
I just refute that. I was not unduly influenced by the chief constable or anyone else.
At the time a committee of the commission took a decision to fund that case. The commission itself, as a whole body, had just a few days earlier decided not to take a case in its own name.
There was obviously a difference of opinion within the commission as to whether we should be challenging the police's handling of the Holy Cross dispute.
But what prompted your proposal to drop the case? Was it concern over costs, or was it Ronnie Flanagan's letter?
What prompted my suggestion that we discuss the letter from the chief constable was the arrival of the letter. I often put before the commission correspondence that has come in since the last commission meeting.
But the minutes record that in the meeting which followed the arrival of Mr Flanagan's letter, you actually proposed dropping the case, just as Mr Flanagan had requested.
I would need to go and check the minutes. I might well have proposed that but as soon as it was pointed out that we didn't have criteria for deciding which cases to proceed with and which cases to drop, I readily agreed that we shouldn't discuss it there and then but defer it.
In your first letter in December 2001 to Ronnie Flanagan you begin with the sentence: "I know that you are considering putting on paper... your feelings about how we as a body treated you in relation to the policing of the protest at Holy Cross."
This suggests that you were aware of some dissatisfaction on his part. How were you aware of that? Were you approached by him? Had there been any conversations or contacts between you in the run-up to the letters?
Being completely honest, I cannot remember. I don't know whether there was a phone call – I don't think there was correspondence – or whether the legal side of the police had been on to us.
(Later Mr Dickson checked his records and could find no explanation for his prior knowledge of Sir Ronnie's intentions.)
I would just like to stress, we were a relatively new commission dealing with a very controversial matter. And let's get it straight, nobody on the commission thought that the human rights of the children at Holy Cross were not being abused. Of course they were being abused, that went without saying.
The only question here is whether the police were breaching the Human Rights Act in the way that they dealt with the protest.
In this situation the commission had taken a decision not, in its own name, to get involved.
Then a committee took the opposite decision. That, naturally, caused a great deal of concern amongst some commissioners, myself included.
But was it proper that you put in writing to the chief constable details of that split, telling him that the head of the commission believed that the parent did not have a case? You must have known that the police could use such a letter against you.
I thought it was the right thing to do at the time, having listened to the other commissioners who had expressed their deep concerns to me.
Should the commission's priority not have been a duty of care to the person whose case it was funding?
I think the priority at that time was to keep the commission together.
Was there pressure from within the commission to write this letter to the chief constable?
I said already that some commissioners were very unhappy at the turn of events.
Having discussed with them what they as individuals might do or what the commission as a whole might do, the letter that I sent was, I think, the right thing to do at the time, with their complete agreement.
Is it not strange that the head of the commission is going to a respondent in a case which it is funding and telling the respondent, we are actually split on this and here are the people who agree with the police position?
Whether or not it was the right thing to do at the time, the letter has no effect on the substance of the case. The chief constable cannot use it to support his argument.
But how can any member of the public know that they can go to the commission for help, without fearing that the chief commissioner might write to the individual or group they are taking action against to criticise their case? Surely this is a breach of trust.
I don't consider it was a breach of trust but people can be sure that we have improved our procedures so that there cannot be this clash between what the commission as a whole wants and what a committee wants.
From the point of view of the parent, was this a breach of trust?
Not in a situation where that commission has already decided not to get involved in the case and then a committee decides to get involved. It is a one-off situation.
Surely you could have recorded your dissent within the commission as other commissioners have done. Is it really fair to say that the only course open was to write to the chief constable?
Writing that letter was, I thought, the least worst option.
What were the alternatives?
A series of letters from individual commissioners or resignations from the commission. I felt that it was the right thing to do at that time.
You wrote it because other commissioners were threatening to resign over Holy Cross?
I wouldn't like to say there were open threats to resign but it was moving in that direction. Feelings were running very high.
Does that solely refer to the three commissioners whose names are included in your letter or were others moving in that direction?
I would rather not say. And anyway my recollection of the detail at this stage is a bit hazy. At the time I thought it was the right thing to do.
I did what I felt was right at the time. Given that the same discrepancy between the commission and a committee cannot arise again, I won't be placed in that position again.
If I was to be, I might judge the situation differently and not send such a letter.
