A lawyer defending former Northern Ireland secretary Peter Hain against claims he “scandalised a judge” has challenged whether the offence still exists in law.
At a preliminary court hearing in Belfast today, David Dunlop also questioned if the case brought by Northern Ireland Attorney General John Larkin complied with the European Convention on Human Rights.
However, Mr Larkin defended his decision to prosecute the Labour MP for critical comments he made about a High Court judge in his autobiography.
Appearing before three judges in Belfast’s High Court, Mr Dunlop, representing Mr Hain and his publishers Biteback, said the case was “highly significant” in terms of the implications there are for freedom of expression and free speech.
The lawyer said one matter he wished to examine when the case went to trial was whether the “archaic” offence still existed. “One issue is whether the offence of contempt the Attorney General seeks to prosecute actually remains in existence in terms of common law,” he said.
Mr Dunlop said if it did still exist there remained a question whether it complied with European conventions on freedom of expression. “The respondents dispute absolutely that anything that has been said or done amounts to a contempt of court at all.”
Mr Larkin took the contempt of court action against Mr Hain and his publishers over criticisms he made of Lord Justice Paul Girvan in his memoirs.
The views penned by the Neath MP related to the judge’s handling of a judicial review case over Mr Hain’s decision to appoint police widow Bertha McDougall as an interim victims commissioner for the region.
The full case will be heard on June 19th.
Mr Hain was not in court for this morning’s hearing.