About this case:

• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  High Court
• Judge:
  Mr Justice Maguire

Finding that Ms Bunting’s comments outside Belfast Islamic Centre and at a Britain First rally were designed to “instil public revulsion against those of Islamic faith” and exceeded protected speech, Mr Justice Paul Maguire said the suspension did not breach her human rights and was proportionate in the circumstances.

Complaints

In 2014, Ms Bunting was elected to Belfast City Council. Throughout 2017 and 2018, members of the Council, the Chief Executive Officer of the Council, and members of the public, made numerous complaints about Ms Bunting to the Local Government Commissioner for Standards, including:

• Comments Ms Bunting made on a video published on 13 December 2017 when she was pictured outside the Belfast Islamic Centre with Ms Jayda Fransen (of Britain First), speaking of their opposition to the growth of Islam in Belfast;
• Ms Bunting appearing to facilitate filming Ms Fransen in the Council Chamber in January 2018, in which Ms Fransen was sitting in the Lord Mayor’s chair and wearing the ceremonial robes provided for councillors;
• Ms Bunting’s comments during Council meetings on 3 January 2018 and 9 April 2018;
• Ms Bunting’s participation in a rally organised with Britain First on 6 August 2017 and subsequent interviews in the News Letter and on Facebook;
• A social media post on 3 May 2018 of a meme depicting a cartoon wearing an Irish Tricolour and a hat with the phrase “Please be patient I have Famine”.

Suspension

In September 2018, the Acting Local Government Commissioner for Standards concluded that there was prima facie evidence that Ms Bunting had breached the NI Local Government Code of Conduct for Councillors.

The alleged breach justified suspending Ms Bunting for four months pending the outcome of an investigation into complaints made against her.

The Acting Commissioner held that it was in the public interest to suspend Ms Bunting immediately given:

• The serious nature of the allegations;
• Her hostility towards specific groups;
• The unprecedented no. of complaints,
• The repetitive and escalated nature of her conduct;
• The impact on certain groups within the community.

It was concluded that without Ms Bunting’s suspension while investigations were ongoing, there would be further disruption to the functioning of the Council and a loss of public confidence in the Council.

High Court

In the High Court, Ms Bunting appealed against the interim decision to suspend her pursuant to Section 60(9) of the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 2014.

Mr Justice Maguire said two matters arose in the appeal:

1. Whether it was necessary for the Court to have regard to whether the tests set out in section 60(1) were met in order to determine the suspension and/or its length
2. Whether an appeal under section 60(9) was sufficiently wide as to embrace issues under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights

Tests under Section 60(1)

The first test under section 60(1) was to consider whether there has been assembled prima facie evidence that Ms Bunting failed to comply with the Code. Mr Justice Maguire held that the complaints upon which the Acting Commissioner was adjudicating disclosed prima facie evidence of potential breaches of the Code and said there was no basis upon which the correctness of this conclusion should not be accepted.

The second test was concerned with whether there was prima facie evidence that the nature of any breach of the Code was such as to be likely to lead to disqualification. Mr Justice Maguire said it was clear the Commissioner regarded the case against Ms Bunting as satisfying the likely disqualification test and said he did not view the conclusion as wrong.

The third test requires a view to be taken as to whether it is in the public interest to suspend or partially suspend a person immediately in an interim adjudication situation. Mr Justice Maguire said it was clear the Commissioner had taken into account the impact on Ms Bunting and weighed this against the gravity of the allegations and complaints and the erosion of public confidence in general. Mr Justice Maguire was unable to identify any sound reason for not imposing a suspension.

Article 10 ECHR

Under this heading, Mr Justice Maguire considered the following:

• Does Ms Bunting’s alleged behaviour attract “enhanced protection” in terms of freedom of speech?
• If it does, is there a prima facie breach of Article 10?
• If there is, can the interference be justified?
• Is the sanction of suspension a proportionate response at this stage?

Firstly, Mr Justice Maguire was satisfied that the bulk of Ms Bunting’s behaviour had sufficient connection with her role as a councillor and her contribution to issues of public debate to come within the category of enhanced protection.

A major exception to this was the “Please be patient I have Famine” meme, which Mr Justice Maguire said, on proper analysis, could be viewed as “simply abusive and reflective of a warped outlook and mindset’, not disclosing any true contribution to political discourse.

A bulk of the complaints fell within the sphere of enhanced protection and there was an “irresistible argument that the suspension was prima facie an interference” with Article 10 ECHR. However, Mr Justice Maguire said that the line (between protected political expression and expression which may be properly controlled by the State) had been crossed with regard to:

• - Ms Bunting’s role in co-organising the August 2017 rally with Britain First and her comments which were offensive to those of Islamic faith;
• - The video of Ms Bunting with Ms Fransen outside the Belfast Islamic Centre in December 2018, which Mr Justice Maguire said was designed to “instil public revulsion against those of Islamic faith” and “exceeded the bounds of protected speech”.

Mr Justice Maguire was also satisfied that the interim sanction was proportionate, and dismissed the appeal.

• by Seosamh Gráinséir for Irish Legal News