A Belfast judge has ruled that Britain's Lord Chancellor was wrong to insist on barristers having to declare they would serve the queen before they could become queen's counsel.
Mr Seamus Treacy and Mr Barry Macdonald, both Catholics, were in court to hear Mr Justice Kerr rule that the Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine of Lairg, was wrong to retain the controversial declaration.
The barristers had applied for a judicial review of his decision they must declare they would "well and truly serve Queen Elizabeth II" despite a recommendation by the Elliott Committee - composed of members of the Bar Council - that any reference to the queen should be dropped.
The committee said the declaration should merely promise to "serve all whom I may lawfully be called upon to serve in the office of one of Her Majesty's counsel learned in the law".
Mr Treacy and Mr Macdonald claimed the declaration discriminated against their nationalist sensibilities.
During the hearing earlier this year it emerged that the Lord Chief Justice, Sir Robert Carswell, informed the Lord Chancellor that he believed there was a politically-based campaign to have the office of queen's counsel replaced by a rank entitled senior counsel. The court was told that the Lord Chancellor decided to retain the existing declaration in the interests of uniformity as it was used in England and Wales.
In yesterday's judgment, Mr Justice Kerr referred to the letter written by Sir Robert to the Lord Chancellor in June, 1997. In it, Sir Robert said: "I have consulted my Supreme Court colleagues and they are united in the view that the declaration should remain in its present form."
Mr Justice Kerr said the Lord Chancellor believed that this referred to the views held by the judges after the Elliott report had been produced.
"It is now clear, however, that following publication of that report the judges had not expressed any view on the form the declaration should take," said the judge.
He concluded that the view of the Lord Chancellor that a decision to retain the declaration would not give rise to controversy was unreasonable in the legal sense.
Mr Peter Weir, a dissident Ulster Unionist Party MLA and barrister, said the ruling was a further application to the "dimmer switch on Britishness". A former DUP minister, Mr Nigel Dodds, who is also a barrister, said the Lord Chancellor could still ensure that the declaration remained. Mr Alban Maginness, an SDLP MLA and barrister, said the decision vindicated the "principled and courageous" stance of the lawyers.