The UK Supreme Court has allowed the Govt’s appeal in the Dillon case
Government Press Summary of Supreme Court Judgement
7 May 2026
In the matter of an application by Martina Dillon, John McEvoy, Brigid Hughes and Lynda McManus for Judicial Review (Respondents);
In the matter of an application by Martina Dillon, John McEvoy, Brigid Hughes and Lynda McManus for Judicial Review (Appellants) No 2
[2026] UKSC 15
On appeal from: [2024] NICA 59
Justices: Lord Reed (President), Lord Hodge (Deputy President), Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Hamblen and Lord Stephens
Background to the Appeal
This appeal concerns an application for judicial review of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 (“the 2023 Act”) brought by Martina Dillon, John McEvoy, Brigid Hughes and Lynda McManus (“the applicants”). The applicants argue that various provisions of the 2023 Act undermine rights previously guaranteed by EU law and now protected by article 2(1) of the Windsor Framework, which forms part of the EU-UK Withdrawal Agreement. They also claim that certain provisions of the 2023 Act are incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights (“the Convention”), as given effect in UK domestic law by the Human Rights Act 1998 (“the Human Rights Act”).
The 2023 Act responds to the legacy of “the Troubles”, a period of conflict in Northern Ireland that began in the late 1960s and continued until the Belfast (or Good Friday) Agreement of 10 April 1998. More than 3,500 people were killed during the Troubles, with approximately 40,000 injured. Around 1,200 killings remain unsolved. The 2023 Act establishes an Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery (“ICRIR”), whose functions include carrying out reviews of deaths and serious injuries caused by conduct forming part of the Troubles. The 2023 Act also introduces a conditional immunity scheme, allowing those who cooperate with the ICRIR to receive immunity from prosecution for Troubles-related offences. Inquisitorial reviews by the ICRIR have replaced police investigations, investigations by the Police Ombudsman, inquests and civil claims relating to Troubles-related conduct, and the 2023 Act has brought existing investigations, inquests and claims to an end.
The applicants have each suffered as a result of crimes committed during the Troubles. They are all directly affected by the 2023 Act, as follows:
• Martina Dillon’s husband, Seamus Dillon, was shot and killed on 27 December 1997 by a loyalist paramilitary group. There was evidence of collusion by state authorities, but the inquest into Mr Dillon’s death was ended by the 2023 Act.
• John McEvoy narrowly escaped death and sustained serious psychiatric injuries following an attack by loyalist paramilitary gunmen on 19 November 1992. The 2023 Act has ended the Police Ombudsman and police investigations into his case, despite the possibility of state collusion in the attack.
• Brigid Hughes’ husband, Anthony Hughes, was shot and killed by members of the security forces on 8 May 1987. The 2023 Act has ended the inquest into Mr Hughes’ death.
• Lynda McManus is the daughter of James McManus who was severely injured in a sectarian gun attack perpetrated by loyalist paramilitaries on 5 February 1992. A Police Ombudsman report found collusive behaviour by the police in the attack. Ms McManus brought a civil claim on behalf of her father’s estate, but the 2023 Act has prevented her claim from proceeding.
The applicants challenged provisions of the 2023 Act including:
• The provisions which establish the conditional immunity scheme (sections 7(3), 12, 19-22, 39, 41 and 42(1)) (“the immunity provisions”).
• Sections 8, 43(1) and 43(2). Section 8 provides that material obtained or produced by the ICRIR in the exercise of its functions is inadmissible in civil or coronial proceedings. Section 43(1) prevents Troubles-related civil claims commenced on or after 17 May 2022 from being continued on or after 18 November 2023, the date the section came into force. Section 43(2) prevents Troubles-related civil claims from being commenced on or after 18 November 2023.
• The provisions which govern the conduct of investigations by the ICRIR.
In the High Court in Northern Ireland, the trial judge determined some issues in favour of the applicants and others in favour of the defendant Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. In favour of the applicants, the trial judge declared that the immunity provisions and sections 8 and 43(1) were incompatible with article 2(1) of the Windsor Framework. Article 2(1) requires the UK to ensure that no diminution of rights, safeguards or equality of opportunity, as set out in the part of the Belfast Agreement entitled Rights, Safeguards and Equality of Opportunity (“the RSEO chapter”), results from the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. The trial judge found that the applicants’ EU law rights under articles 11 and 16 of the EU Victims Directive had been diminished by the immunity provisions, and that their rights under the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (“the Charter”) had been diminished by sections 8 and 43(1) of the 2023 Act. The provisions were therefore disapplied under section 7A of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (“the 2018 Act”), because the Windsor Framework had primacy over them.
The trial judge also declared the immunity provisions and section 8 to be incompatible with articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, which respectively protect the right to life and prohibit torture and inhuman or degrading treatment. In addition, sections 8 and 43(1) were declared to be incompatible with article 6 of the Convention, which holds that, in the determination of their civil rights, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal.
In favour of the defendant Secretary of State, the trial judge rejected the applicants’ argument that the ICRIR was unable to carry out investigations in a way that was compliant with the UK’s obligations to investigate a death, or an allegation of torture or inhuman and degrading treatment, under articles 2 and 3 of the Convention (“the article 2/3 investigative obligation”). The 2023 Act and policy documents published by the ICRIR showed it had the necessary independence from government. In addition, the ICRIR’s policies and procedures brought the Commission's obligations to victims and next of kin into compliance with the Convention. Lastly, section 43(2) of the 2023 Act was lawful.
The Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland upheld the trial judge’s declarations that the immunity provisions breached article 2(1) of the Windsor Framework and articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. The Court of Appeal also upheld the trial judge’s declarations that section 8 was incompatible with articles 2, 3 and 6 of the Convention and that section 43(1) was incompatible with article 6 of the Convention. The Court of Appeal made a further declaration that section 43(2) was incompatible with article 6. However, it reversed the disapplication of sections 8 and 43(1) under article 2(1) of the Windsor Framework because these sections did not diminish the applicants’ rights under EU law. The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge had been wrong to equate any breach of the Convention with a corresponding breach of the Charter. The Charter does not provide freestanding justiciable rights; it is, rather, an aid to the interpretation of relevant provisions of EU law.
In addition, the Court of Appeal held that the ICRIR is not presently capable of carrying out an investigation in a way that is compliant with the article 2/3 investigative obligation, because:
(a) the deceased’s next of kin will not be involved in the investigation to the extent needed to safeguard their legitimate interests, and (b) the ICRIR is not sufficiently independent from the state in relation to the disclosure of documents and information by it to next of kin, victims and the public.
The Secretary of State appeals to the Supreme Court on the question whether the Court of Appeal was correct to disapply the immunity provisions on the basis of a breach of article 2(1) of the Windsor Framework (“the Windsor Framework ground of appeal”). The Secretary of State also appeals against the Court of Appeal’s findings relating to the ICRIR’s ability to carry out investigations compatibly with the article 2/3 investigative obligation (“the ICRIR: Next of kin involvement and disclosure ground of appeal”). The Secretary of State does not challenge the declarations that the immunity provisions and sections 8 and 43 are incompatible with the Convention; this ground of appeal was abandoned before the Court of Appeal judgment was handed down after a new Secretary of State was appointed following the 2024 UK general election. The applicants cross-appeal against the Court of Appeal’s decision to reverse the disapplication of sections 8 and 43(1), arguing that their EU law rights under the Charter are diminished (“the Charter ground of appeal”). The Supreme Court has also been asked to consider arguments put forward by interveners in the appeal, including the Northern Ireland Veterans Movement (“the Veterans Movement”).
Judgment
The Supreme Court unanimously allows the Secretary of State’s appeal on both the Windsor Framework ground of appeal and the ICRIR: Next of kin involvement and disclosure ground of appeal. It dismisses the applicants’ cross-appeal on the Charter ground of appeal. The Supreme Court gives a judgment to which all of its members have contributed.
In summary, the Supreme Court concludes that the immunity provisions and sections 8 and 43(1) of the 2023 Act do not breach article 2(1) of the Windsor Framework because the applicants’ rights derived from EU law have not been diminished as a result of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. The immunity provisions do not diminish the rights conferred by articles 11 and 16 of the EU Victims Directive in a way that would have been contrary to EU law, had the UK remained in the EU. Sections 8 and 43(1) do not breach articles 2, 4 and 47 of the Charter because the rights the Charter protects are not freestanding. They require an anchor in EU law which is not present here. It follows that the immunity provisions and sections 8 and 43(1) do not need to be disapplied. In addition, the applicants have been unable to show that ICRIR investigations will breach the article 2/3 investigative obligation in all or almost all cases, which is the standard that must be met when legislation is challenged prospectively.
No appeal was made to the Supreme Court against the lower courts’ declarations that the immunity provisions and sections 8, 43(1) and 43(2) of the 2023 Act are incompatible with Convention rights, so those declarations must remain in force. The Court comments (obiter) that it would in any event reject the Veterans Movement's submission that there is an exception to the general rule that breaches of articles 2 and 3 must be punished where an amnesty or immunity is granted with the view to reconciliation following conflict. This is because it is well established that the UK domestic courts should not go further in the application of the Convention than is consistent with the principles established by the European Court of Human Rights (“the Strasbourg court”), which has not yet recognised a reconciliation exception.
Reasons for the Supreme Court Judgment
The Windsor Framework ground of appeal
The Windsor Framework ground raises three questions [110]. First, does article 2(1) of the Windsor Framework have direct effect? In other words, can article 2(1) be enforced by individuals in the UK domestic courts? Secondly, do the immunity provisions breach article 2(1) of the Windsor Framework? This depends on whether the rights referred to in article 2(1) have been curtailed because of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. Thirdly, if the answers to the first and second questions are “yes”, is the Supreme Court required to disapply the immunity provisions?
Does article 2(1) have direct effect?
The Supreme Court’s answer to this question is that it may in certain circumstances. The principle of direct effect comes from EU law. Article 2(1) has direct effect if, regard being had to its wording, purpose and nature, it contains a clear and precise obligation that does not depend on further action by the EU or the UK before it can take effect [112]. Article 2(1) of the Windsor Framework refers to the rights, safeguards or equality of opportunity “as set out” in the RSEO chapter of the Belfast Agreement. It is therefore necessary to read the RSEO chapter and article 2(1) of the Windsor Framework together to decide whether the test for direct effect is met [113].
The Supreme Court holds that the paragraphs of the RSEO chapter on which the applicants rely cannot have direct effect because they are expressed in too general terms. Paragraph 1 refers to “civil rights”, “mutual respect”, and “religious liberties”. Paragraph 11 identifies the need to “acknowledge and address the suffering of the victims of violence”. Paragraph 12 refers to “a right to remember” [114]. However, this does not mean that article 2(1) of the Windsor Framework is incapable of having direct effect in any circumstances. First, article 2(1) specifically refers to six EU Directives which all relate to the prohibition of discrimination. Article 2(1) taken with one of those EU Directives might have direct effect. None of those EU Directives applies in this case [118]. Secondly, article 2(1) taken with another EU instrument that falls within the rights contained in the RSEO chapter might satisfy the test for direct effect. In this respect the applicants rely on the EU Victims Directive [125].
Are the immunity provisions in breach of article 2(1)?
The Supreme Court’s answer to this question is “no”. The EU Victims Directive guarantees the right to review a decision to prosecute (article 11) and the right to a decision on compensation (article 16). However, these rights do not fall within paragraphs 1 or 12 of the RSEO chapter, referred to above [129]–[132]. Articles 11 and 16 may fall within the subject matter of paragraph 11 of the RSEO chapter, but it is unnecessary for the Supreme Court to reach a concluded view on this [133]. This is because articles 11 and 16 of the EU Victims Directive are concerned with the conduct of prosecutions in individual cases and do not regulate broader policy questions on when prosecutions should be pursued, such as a national policy on immunity for the purposes of post-conflict reconciliation. Therefore, the 2023 Act did not curtail rights conferred by the EU Victims Directive in a way which would have been impermissible had the UK remained in the EU [134]–[136].
Is the Supreme Court required to disapply the immunity provisions?
This question does not arise as the immunity provisions are not in breach of article 2(1) of the Windsor Framework [138].
The Charter ground of appeal
The Charter
The Charter is a legal document that sets out the fundamental rights, freedoms and principles that are recognised and protected under EU law. Among the rights that the Charter protects are the right to life (article 2), the right to prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (article 4), and the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial (article 47).
The applicants argue that sections 8 and 43(1) of the 2023 Act should be disapplied under article 2(1) of the Windsor Framework because they breach the rights protected by articles 2, 4 and 47 of the Charter. However, the Charter explicitly defines and limits its intended field of application. Article 51(1) states that the Charter only applies to EU member states when they are “implementing Union law”.
The Supreme Court’s decision
The Supreme Court affirms the Court of Appeal’s decision on the Charter ground of appeal and rejects the applicants’ cross-appeal [144], [159], [250]. The Charter was not intended to operate on a freestanding basis. This is supported by the text of the Windsor Framework itself and the “implementing Union law” requirement in article 51(1) of the Charter.
Beginning with the text of the Windsor Framework, article 2(1) only applies to rights “set out” in the RSEO chapter and the only arguable reference to Charter rights is the generalised reference to “civil rights”. However, this is not sufficiently apt to “set out” specific and enforceable legal rights such as those contained in the Charter [148].
Turning to article 51(1) of the Charter, the settled case law of both the Court of Justice of the EU and the UK domestic courts show that, to be “implementing Union law”, the Charter must be “anchored” in another provision of EU law which the member state is implementing [149]-[156]. As article 2(1) of the Windsor Framework does not “implement” EU law since the relevant paragraphs of the RSEO chapter did not “set out” directly effective EU rights nor Charter rights, the necessary “anchor” to a provision of EU law being implemented is absent. Accordingly, article 51 of the Charter is not satisfied and the Charter does not apply [157]. The Supreme Court considers that multiple contextual factors support this interpretation [145]-[147].
The ICRIR: Next of kin involvement and disclosure ground of appeal
The Supreme Court allows the Secretary of State’s appeal on this ground because the applicants are unable to show that ICRIR investigations will breach the article 2/3 investigative obligation in all or almost all cases [231].
The applicants challenge the 2023 Act’s compliance with the article 2/3 investigative obligation in the abstract, rather than challenging a review carried out by the ICRIR in an individual case. For such an “ab ante”, or prospective, challenge to succeed, the applicants must establish that the 2023 Act will give rise to a failure to comply with one or more elements of the article 2/3 investigative obligation so that there will be no effective investigation in all or almost all cases [160]-[162]. This is a high hurdle which is not met in this case [195]-[198], [207], [217], [220], [224].
In determining the ab ante challenge, the Supreme Court is required to assess the scheme of the 2023 Act against the article 2/3 investigative obligation [178]-[180], [196]. The outer bounds of the article 2/3 investigative obligation require the state to conduct promptly some form of official investigation when an individual is killed by the use of force, or when there is a reasonable suspicion that a person has been subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment [184]. The Convention provides minimum standards, not the best possible practice [190]. The requirements of effectiveness and accessibility to the family may well be influenced by the passage of time [191].
The Supreme Court rejects the applicants’ arguments that the article 2/3 investigative obligation is not met for the following reasons. First, the applicants contend that the 2023 Act does not provide for legal aid to be made available to the next of kin or victims for the purposes of representation during a review by the ICRIR of a Troubles-related death or allegation of torture. But it does not follow from this that there will be a breach of the article 2/3 investigation in all or almost all cases [192], [197]. The Strasbourg court case law shows that whether and the extent to which legal aid for representation is required for article 2/3 investigations will depend on the facts and context of each particular case [193]. Furthermore, it will rarely be possible to determine whether the next of kin or victims are sufficiently involved in ICRIR reviews, and whether there has been an effective investigation, until the investigation has been completed [195]-[198].
Secondly, the applicants argue that, without an ability to question witnesses in the inquisitorial system of the 2023 Act, they will not be involved in ICRIR reviews to the extent necessary to protect their legitimate interests [199]-[200]. However, they cannot show that there will be a failure to comply with the element of next of kin or victim involvement “in all or almost all cases”, for reasons including that an inquisitorial system can satisfy the article 2/3 investigative obligation [200]-[207].
Thirdly, the applicants claim that the Secretary of State’s powers to prohibit disclosure by the ICRIR mean that the ICRIR will lack independence in disclosing sensitive information to the next of kin, victims and the public. However, the applicants cannot meet the test of “in all or almost all cases” in relation to disclosure either [217]. Although the Secretary of State can decide whether the disclosure of information would risk prejudicing or would prejudice the national security interests of the UK, this power is not unrestrained, nor is it the “final say” [215]. The Secretary of State’s powers do not mean that the ICRIR will lack independence in disclosing sensitive information to the next of kin, victims and the public, nor that this will result in there being an ineffective investigation, in all or almost all cases [217]-[230].
The intervention by the Veterans Movement
The Veterans Movement is an unincorporated association of veterans’ groups who oppose the prosecution of those who served in the UK forces in Northern Ireland during the Troubles [30]. In their intervention, they argue that the trial judge and the Court of Appeal applied the wrong test when finding that the immunity provisions would breach articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. They submit that there is (or it is possible that there is) a “reconciliation exception” to the general rule that breaches of articles 2 and 3 must be punished, which applies where an amnesty or immunity is granted with the view to reconciliation following conflict. The Veterans Movement argued that the immunity provisions fall within this exception, and so do not breach articles 2 and 3 [232]-[234].
This ground of appeal was abandoned by the Secretary of State before the Court of Appeal’s judgment was delivered. The Veterans Movement as an intervener cannot reactivate an appeal which the Secretary of State abandoned. Therefore, the Supreme Court cannot overturn the Court of Appeal decision on this point. The Supreme Court nonetheless considers it appropriate to express its view on whether the Strasbourg court and domestic courts have previously recognised a reconciliation exception [237]. The Supreme Court finds that the Strasbourg court has not decided that there is a reconciliation exception (though it has not ruled out the possibility that such an exception may exist) [238]-[246]. The domestic courts should follow and keep pace with the decisions of the Strasbourg court, no more and no less. As the Strasbourg court has not established that there is a reconciliation exception, the domestic courts should not go further by applying such an exception to the circumstances in Northern Ireland. Therefore, the general rule that breaches of articles 2 and 3 must be punished continues to apply [247]-[248].
References in square brackets are to paragraphs in the judgment.
NOTE:
This summary is provided to assist in understanding the Court’s decision. It does not form part of the reasons for the decision. The full judgment of the Court is the only authoritative document. Judgments are public documents and are available at: Decided cases - The Supreme Court
'Prisoners in their own homes': Plight of elderly amid disorder of Derry
SHAUN KEENAN, Belfast Telegraph, July 7th, 2026
FOUNTAIN ESTATE COMMUNITY WORKER APPEALS TO PARENTS OF YOUTHS BEHIND INTERFACE ATTACKS
A veteran community worker in the Fountain estate in Londonderry has spoken of her heartbreak as disorder escalated again on Tuesday night.
Jeanette Warke, programme director at Cathedral Youth Club, told the Belfast Telegraph that residents — many of them elderly — were now living in fear.
She said: “They are prisoners in their own homes. They can't come out the front door, sit in their garden, or allow their children to play around that area. It is scary.”
Ms Warke, who has worked in the community for over five decades, said the attacks in recent weeks had caught everyone off guard.
She added: “Nobody expected this, it is totally out of the blue and took us quite by surprise, especially people up at the interface.
“We're talking about an area that consists of elderly people, families and migrant communities, and they are all terrified.”
Others caught up in the disorder were elderly residents of Alexander House, which sits opposite the unionist enclave.
She said: “I don't know how they are coping with this at all. They are elderly people and it is just not fair on the community on either side. It is an absolute disgrace.”
In one incident, youths entered a resident's garden and reached through a window to pull down a flag before climbing a fence and fleeing.
Ms Warke added: “I was sitting with one resident last night and she is really upset and annoyed and she is afraid to go out her back door. It is heartbreaking to witness. These people are vulnerable — they are somebody's granny — and they are leaving them very frightened.
“I don't understand what these young people are thinking. They could go to a sports club or a sports centre. Instead they decide to do this, which is doing nothing for anyone.
Ruining lives
“They are doing nothing but ruining their own lives and putting their own futures at risk. They don't want something like this hanging over them for the rest of their lives. Somebody could get seriously hurt if this continues.”
She asked: “Where are the parents? Surely they must know where their children are and what they are doing. I think the parents need to step up and take control. It can't be left to youth workers and people in the community.
“It just leaves people in the Fountain very annoyed and in distress.
“We are really hoping we have seen the last of this, or that somebody intervenes to get these young people into their own communities, because there is lots of good work going on in those places too and surely they can be part of something good rather than doing this.
“The Fountain is closed in enough as it this. This community should be able to roam free in their own area without fear of being hit by a brick or a rocket. It is so thoughtless.”
The PSNI confirmed Tuesday's disorder was the fourth such incident in the Bishop Street, Fountain and Nailors Row areas in under two weeks, with previous incidents recorded on April 20 and 21 and again on Monday of this week.
Police said a number of masked youths had gathered in the area on Tuesday evening, with Bishop Street temporarily closed to deal with the disorder.
Glass bottles, fireworks and petrol bombs were thrown, with masonry also hurled at police vehicles.
A 13-year-old boy was arrested on suspicion of riotous behaviour and has since been released on bail. A second arrest followed yesterday when a 14-year-old boy was detained on suspicion of riotous behaviour. He remains in custody.
Derry City and Strabane area commander Chief Superintendent Gillian Kearney said: “The investigation to identify all those involved continues, and we will take action against anyone identified as committing offences.”
Anyone with information, including dash-cam or CCTV footage, is asked to contact police on 101 quoting reference 1383 of 05/05/26, report online at psni.police.uk/makeareport, or contact Crimestoppers anonymously on 0800 555 111 or at crimestoppers-uk.org.
Limiting one-sided lawyering: A reconciliation legacy for Mrs Long.
Unless non-single-identity measures are promoted and instituted by authorities, reconciliation will continue to come under attack by activist lawyering regardless of the outcome of the Dillon case in the Supreme Court.
Dr Cillian McGrattan
Over the past few weeks, questions have been asked about the relationship of lawyers and legacy. The relationship remains murky and until proactive measures are taken to limit single-identity work, legacy politics will remain captured by legal elites to the diminution of the common good.
The role of legacy lawyers has been criticized by veterans and Conservative politicians as akin to a ‘witch-hunt’.[1] Unionists have argued that the ‘endless inquiries’ have merely ‘lined the pockets of a small number of solicitors’.[2]
However, the argument here is that the cumulative effect of the work of legacy lawyers has been multilayered: the utter marginalization and exclusion of the Protestant tradition and the continued radicalization of Irish nationalism and the degradation of the public sphere – to name but three. The cumulative effect of nationalist or anti-state legacy lawyering denotes a clear intent to disarticulate unionist ideology and destroy any hopes for reconciliation.
Begging the Question
The issue has recently become prominent due to a couple of media stories. The first was the response by lawyer Padraig Ó Muirigh to the Chief Constable’s complaint that legacy lawyers had cost the PSNI £25m. Ó Muirigh begged the question (in a philosophical sense), when he suggested the police could have settled sooner.[3]
The second begged the question in the colloquial sense – namely, why a case regarding an SAS ambush of IRA terrorists got as far as the Court of Appeal, let alone how it got so far into the system in the first place when a judge had expressed ‘surprise’ that ‘legal aid funding was made available to mount such a challenge’ in 2024.[4]
The Northern Ireland veterans’ commissioner, David Johnstone, complained that the case was another example of lawfare and suggested that there was an ‘endless bucket of legal aid supplied to those who know they cannot win these cases, but who bring them anyway’. The BBC helpfully supplied a definition of lawfare – namely, ‘the use of legal systems to damage an opponent's reputation, challenge the legality of their actions, or impose bureaucracy in a deliberately obstructive manner’
Divided Legacy Responsibilities
A September 2025 job advertisement by the Committee for the Administration of Justice, an anti-state and broadly anti-unionist legal lobbying group, for a legacy solicitor emblematises the fact that the lawfare industry has created a dual legacy system in Northern Ireland. The advert states that the successful candidate will run the ‘CAJ-convened Legacy Practitioners Group with NGOs, (including Amnesty NI, the Pat Finucane Centre, Relatives for Justice, lawyers and academics to coordinate sectorial interventions and advocacy’.[5]
A joined-up approach is, one assumes, a necessary step when an anti-state ideology that is exclusionary of unionism and moderate nationalism is the driving force. Yet, the problem with that type of ideological community is that it is difficult to see what say, a Catholic family who have suffered at the hands of republicans would expect from groups with little to say about IRA violence. Despite it claiming that its ‘remit is not restricted to any one community’, the PFC presents truth recovery under the heuristic of the ‘poisoned legacy of colonialism’ (in case there is any confusion as to whether colonialism might be conceived positively), and who seem to specialize in claims of collusion. Why a Protestant family would take part in such an organization is also difficult to envisage, especially given that its ‘recovery of living memory archive’ is an imitation of the type of work done by the Independent Commission on Reconciliation and Information Recovery (ICRIR).
But neither the PFC nor the Relatives for Justice (RFJ) recognize the ICRIR. The latter have dismissed the ICRIR asno more than a tool of Perfidious Albion, stating that the ‘ICRIR can only disclose information vetted, controlled and permitted by the British government’.[6] In its most recent Companies House account filings, the RFJ have framed the period, which has seen the lodging of over 1,200 legacy cases, as ‘a very bleak time for’ the ‘rights’ of its clients. [7]
If the PFC and the RFJ do not want to engage with the ICRIR they can really only offer litigation, which, I presume, is where the CAJ and legacy lawyers come in. There is a political blackmail going on here, buried in Companies House reports: Unless Labour perpetuates the litigation model, these organizations will tell their clients that their ‘human rights’ are being denied by the tyrannical British state. One suspects Dublin’s silence on all of this, is indicative of a desire to hollow-out any potential for stability or reconciliation in the North.
The CAJ, the PFC, the RFJ and legacy lawyers hide behind the ruse of human rights – of course, ignoring a distinguished philosophical-legal tradition from Arendt to contemporary writers such as Samuel Moyn that questions their very existence. They sometimes even claim to be anti-sectarian. But, arguably, their work and the tenor of it are strongly suggestive of a dismissal of unionist and moderate nationalist traditions.
Conclusions
Whereas the ICRIR and legacy is funded by the British government – with nominal input from Dublin – legal aid is derived from Naomi Long’s Department of Justice in Northern Ireland. Sinn Féin were successful in lobbying for the non-disclosure of where legacy legal aid went; and although a list of law firms who access it is available, accounts are not itemized. The dual legal system is about the negation of the rule of law through the denigration and boycotting of bespoke legacy bodies (such as the ICRIR, which will become the Legacy Commission) and the disarticulation of unionist and nationalist ideologies through litigation, contention and political blackmail.
Of course, individuals ought to have recourse to the law to rectify human rights abuses, but the colonisation of legacy by the legal profession has spread like an aspic across the public sphere. Demanding legal firms practice parity of esteem in representing communities on both sides of the ethno-religious divide proportionately is not revolutionary – it is simply ensuring that lawyers conform to the types of ethics that nearly every other profession has to uphold in battling sectarianism. There is a growing feeling that lawyers who only represent one community are simply perpetuating division.
Arguably, the Law Society does not see any of this as democratically problematic. And, really, it ought to be left to lawyers to rectify that perception. Ultimate responsibility for legal aid falls to Ms Long’s department. Commissioning a report into the continued fitness-for-purpose of the Law Society and the governance of lawyers would be a first step. This ought to be accompanied by a requirement that legal aid be linked to non-single-identity work – an anti-sectarian measure that, one imagines, would resonate with the ethos of Mrs Long and the Alliance.
Dr Cillian McGrattan is a member of the Malone House Group. He writes in a personal capacity.
FOOTNOTES
[1]Elite SAS veterans urge Labour rebellion over Troubles Bill 'witch hunt' fears | LBC
[2] Jon Burrows, 5 May 2026. Official Reports
[3] Legacy: PSNI could have settled cases sooner, says lawyer - BBC News
[4] Judge dismisses ‘ludicrous’ legal case against SAS killings of IRA terrorists
[5] CAJ-Solicitor-Legacy-Job-Description-September-2025.pdf
[6] ICCR-lft-202488-1.pdf
[7] Relatives for Justice, Annual Report and Audited Financial Statements for financial year ended 31 March 2025 at Companies House, application-pdf
HANNAH PATTERSON, Irish News, May 7th, 2026
A MOTHER of two says she could have been killed after both of her cars were torched in an arson attack in Co Down.
The vehicles were set alight in the early hours of yesterday in the Killynure Green area of Carryduff.
It’s understood the fire began in aMercedes before spreading to a BMW parked beside it.
The incident was reported to police at around 4:45am. PSNI officers are treating the blaze as arson.
Stephanie Walker (29), who was asleep in bed with her four-year son, Marcus Boyle, at the time, said the attack has left her shaken and fearing what could have happened.
She told The Irish News it is Marcus’s birthday tomorrow and added: “I am still in shock. I don’t know what’s going on. Me and my wee boy, who turns five tomorrow, were sleeping. I could see an orange tinge; I didn’t have a inkling what was going on. It was whenever I heard my neighbour screaming to get out of the house now. I thought my downstairs was on fire, or my living room on fire, I didn’t know how I was getting downstairs.
“I lifted the child and ran down the stairs. I got to the bottom and opened the front door and the smoke… the whole street was orange. I ran down into my neighbour’s garden, and by that time the BM then caught on fire.”
Stephanie added that the pair of them could have died.
She said: “I’ve lived there for five years and have had no issues, then this. It’s scary when you’re woke at half four in the morning to your car being on fire. There were other cars on the street, I was targeted. To me that’s attempted murder, if I hadn’t have heard my neighbours, me and my son would not be here.
PSNI treating fires as arson.
“My son is still so scared. He told me, ‘Mummy, if I had seen the fire first, I would have woken you up.’ God love him, he’s innocent. That should never come out of a child’s mouth, never mind him actually going through something like that.
“I don’t know what will happen now. I’ve lost my home, I’ve lost my cars. I’ll not be back to that house again.”
The neighbour who initially saw the fire told The Irish News things could have ended very differently.
She said: “If I hadn’t woke up when I did and raised the alarm, and told the fire brigade, it would have been a different story. That girl and her child would have been dead this morning.”
Councillor for Castlereagh South Brian Higginson has condemned the attack which happened at a social housing property.
The DUP representative told The Irish News a ‘quick-thinking neighbour’ saved Stephanie and Marcus: “I was talking to the resident, she is traumatised. She never heard the two pops of the explosions. It was the shouts and screams of her neighbours that woke her. She then grabbed her child and ran outside past the burning cars. So, a quick-thinking neighbour saved their life.
“She (Stephanie) is having to go and stay with her family, before being emergency housed. This kind of behaviour has no place in our community, and I strongly condemn those responsible for this attack.”
A PSNI spokesperson said: “Officers attended the scene alongside colleagues from the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service who extinguished the blaze.
“We are treating this report as ar-son – with a line of enquiry that one vehicle was initially set on fire which then spread to another parked in the same driveway. Thankfully, no injuries were reported.”
Schoolboy (15) among three people arrested over car bomb at Lurgan police station
CHRISTOPHER LEEBODY, Belfast Telegraph, May 7th, 2026
A 15-year-old boy is among three people arrested as part of the investigation into the bomb attack on Lurgan police station.
Police said they have made three arrests following the attack in March, including a 48-year-old man and 39-year-old woman.
The New IRA previously admitted responsibility for the attack on the PSNI base.
A food delivery driver was hijacked in the Kilwilkie estate and forced to drive a device to the station.
In a statement yesterday morning, the PSNI said: “A 48-year-old man and a 15-year-old boy were arrested earlier today, Wednesday 6 May, under the Terrorism Act.
“Both have been taken to Musgrave Serious Crime Suite for questioning.
“A 39-year-old woman was subsequently arrested on suspicion of perverting the course of justice, obstructing police and assisting an offender.
“All three were arrested in the Lurgan area, where a number of searches remain ongoing.
“This cowardly and widely condemned attack, which took place on the night of Monday 30 March, put innocent lives at risk.
“We are keen to offer assurance that we will continue in our efforts to bring those responsible to justice, and would encourage anyone with information to get in touch.
“Anyone with information is asked to contact detectives on 101, quoting reference 1828 of 30/03/26.”
Police previously described the Lurgan device as “crude but viable”.
It was placed in the boot of the driver's white Audi A4 vehicle before being transported to the police station.
It is understood the car was driven past an empty security post and open gate and parked behind a blast wall before Army bomb squad experts carried out a controlled explosion
Around 100 homes were evacuated during the incident.
Chief Constable Jon Boutcher condemned those who carried out the attack as “cowards”.
He said dissident republican groups “have no support and nothing to offer”.
Mr Boutcher said the incident is “likely to have been a sad attempt to appear relevant ahead of planned dissident republican parades over Easter”.
He added the investigation into the attack is ongoing but “there is little doubt that dissident republicans were responsible”.
“The only thing these people are interested in is themselves and their own egos,” he said.
“They are irrelevant to today's communities in Northern Ireland.”
Talks to save Irish language project began just weeks before funding due to end
JOHN BRESLIN, Irish News, June 7th, 2026
DISCUSSIONS between two government departments over continued funding for an Irish language place name project only began weeks before its three-year funding was due to end, according to documents released by the Department for Communities.
Gordon Lyons’ DfC first asked Department for Finance to fund the NI Place-Name Project (NIPNP) for another year, at a cost of £90,000.
But this request was only made in mid-February and the sender appeared not to even know who to talk to in finance about the funding.
However, the Queen’s University-based project raised concerns over the end of March funding cliff edge when submitting its quarterly report to the communities department months earlier in November, 2025.
Mr Lyons and his department have come under fire over the failure to renew funding for the Queen’s University-based project, which plays a crucial role in ongoing plans for the roll out of dual Irish-English street and other signs.
But Mr Lyons said the decision to stop funding was made by the finance department led by Sinn Féin’s John O’Dowd. Economy Minister Caoimhe Archibald late on Tuesday announced on social media she is “stepping in” to keep the project going, but provided few details.
Mr Lyons said the issue of funding the project “never reached” his desk and emails show the finance department saying “on multiple occasions” that “they were not prepared to fund it anymore”.
Finance said it agreed to provide transition funding of £270,000 over three years from 2023 but that responsibility for the project was transferred to communities and with the “understanding” the latter department would manage “longer term funding”. DfC officials said the “understanding was not that the support was strictly limited to a three-year period”.
Correspondence between the two departments, beginning in mid-February and concluding at the end of March with no agreement, reveals DfC first asked finance for £90,000 to fund the project for a full year, then for approximately £70,000 to enable“a full review by September 2026 and establish a sustainable long-term plan for placename work”.
The Place-Name project began in 1987 with the aim of researching the origins and meanings of local placenames, based on a collection of over 30,000 names of settlements and physical features.
Potential funding sources
But it is also the “sole authoritative source for Irish versions of street names in Northern Ireland”, according to the DfC. This includes key roles making sure correct Irish language addresses are on rates bills, which are managed by Land and Property Services (LPS), and on Irish-English street signs erected by councils.
It announced last week a “winding down” of services due to lack of funding.
In an email, the DfC noted approximately £6 million of public funding has been invested in the project, including in a database of place names.
“If further funding is not secured there is a risk that as the database cannot be maintained, the information will be lost, and all public funding to date will be wasted,” a DfC official wrote.
It was added: “Additionally, given the appointment of the Irish Language Commissioner and the upcoming publishing of the IL (Irish Language) Strategy, which specifically references placenames and signage, it is likely that the Northern Ireland Placenames Project will be high on the political agenda.
“As such, we need to identify potential funding sources to continue the work.”
On Wednesday, the Department for the Economy was still not forthcoming with any details as to how the minister was “stepping in” to save the project.
A DfE spokesperson said: “The Northern Ireland Place-Name Project is based at Queen’s University Belfast. As Minister with responsibility for Higher Education, Minister Archibald has instructed officials to engage with the university to ensure that the work of the project is able to continue.”
Deeds feels heat at Stormont Executive Office committee
REBECCA BLACK, Irish News and Belfast Telegraph, May 7th, 2026
IRISH language commissioner Pol Deeds has been criticised at a meeting of the Stormont Executive Office scrutiny committee over a request for correspondence.
During a meeting yesterday, the committee heard that his office said they would receive the information when a Freedom of Information Act request for it had been completed.
An assembly clerk told the committee that he had not seen that answer from an arms-length body to a Stormont committee before.
DUP MLA Philip Brett said Mr Deeds disputed something he had said at a committee meeting was an incorrect allegation, which he in turn took issue with.
He also told MLAs that Mr Deeds’ position on being asked to provide a breakdown of his legal fees, was in “stark contrast” to the commissioner for the Ulster Scots and Ulster British Tradition, Lee Reynolds, who he said, provided a response.
“The commissioner, in my view, is now getting to the stage where he is obstructing the work of this committee,” he said.
“We have written on a number of occasions asking for this … we’ve asked him for the information, if he doesn’t want to provide it to us, we have powers that we can use, and I would just say we are now getting to the stage where we are perhaps going to have to consider that.
“I just think that this letter is completely unacceptable. If he doesn’t want to provide the information that we have requested, like the other commissioner has done, we should consider what power the committee has to legally compel him.”
TUV MLA Timothy Gaston backed Mr Brett’s position to consider its powers to compel.
“I think Mr Deeds needs reminded that he’s accountable to this committee,” he said.
“We’re not accountable to him, and if we ask for information, regardless of how he interprets that, what he thinks about it, that information should be given without pushback.
‘Let’s be the grown-ups’
However, other MLAs suggested other options.
Sinn Fein MLA Caral Ni Chuilin said she believes the committee should write to the first minister and deputy first minister to seek clarity around the issue.
“The points that have been raised should be put in a letter, but I would like them to be clear that they’re coming from Philip and Timothy, but there are points nonetheless that need responding to,” she said.
SDLP MLA Sinead McLaughlin made a brief intervention in the discussion, claiming the committee was “like the Nolan Show”.
“I just think we’re very quick to reach for a nuclear button,” she said.
“There is a sensible proposal on the table. Just follow it through and let’s be the grown-ups.”
The committee agreed to write to the first minister and deputy first minister around accountability and seeking clarity on who the commissioner is accountable to, as well as writing again to Mr Deeds for the information and seeking legal advice.
An all-too-familiar game of political ping-pong plays out
Pro Fide et Patria, Irish News, May 7th, 2026
ANOTHER day at Stormont, another classic game of political ping-pong. Rinse and repeat, you might say.
This time, the core of the disagreement between the people we elected to improve our lives has centred on funding for the Northern Ireland Place-Name Project.
For those who aren’t aware, this is the £90,000 annual funding for a special body that helps councils with accurate Irish translations for dual-language street signs.
The project began in 1987 with the aim of researching the origins and meanings of local place-names, based on a collection of over 30,000 names of settlements and physical features.
Pro Fide et Patria, Irish News, May 7th, 2026
In an inclusive society, it’s an important project but in this part After we led this newspaper on Monday with news that the Communities Minister Gordon Lyons had pulled funding for the project, he went on the airwaves to absolve himself of responsibility and instead point the finger at the Department of Finance, led by Sinn Féin’s John O’Dowd, saying that’s where the decision was made.
“ Instead of straightforward answers and joinedup legislating, the public is left watching another episode of the political blame game of the world, it sadly and predictably descends into an all-too-familiar ‘he said, she said’ row.
Finance then said responsibility was transferred to Communities back in 2022 with the understanding it would handle future funding.
Political bubbles
Conchúr Ó Muadaigh, advocacy manager with Conradh na Gaeilge, insisted “ultimate responsibility to continue, or indeed to discontinue this scheme, lies fully with Minister Lyons”.
He added: “Departmental mismanagement and ministerial negligence, or worse, has led to this project essentially closing down.”
Then, on Tuesday night, in stepped Sinn Féin Economy Minister Caoimhe Archibald to end the stand-off, announcing her department would fund it.
The entire episode has been another example of the full Stormont circus in action: accusations, denials, finger-pointing, and finally someone riding in to the rescue.
The frustrating part is that this has become so predictable but – let’s not forget – these are partners in government. Or, at least, they are meant to be. But evidence of joining forces for the greater good has been harder and harder to find.
Instead of straightforward answers and joined-up legislating, the public is left watching another episode of the political blame game.
Meanwhile, a project with real cultural and practical value was winding down its work because nobody could seem to agree whose desk the paperwork landed on.
For people outside the political bubble, it all feels wearily familiar. Stormont’s politicians have spent years mastering the performance of disagreement – but, sadly, much less time mastering the basics of accountability.
And until that changes and they do their absolute best to work together, we’ll keep seeing the same script play out.
Material removed at loyalist bonfire site
CONNLA YOUNG, Irish News, May 7th, 2026
MATERIAL dumped at a loyalist bonfire site in north Belfast has been removed by the Housing Executive.
Workers used tipper lorries to remove the scrap wood and other material at Mount Vernon early yesterday morning.
The rubbish, which included old seats, mattresses and other household items, was dumped just yards from a notorious UVF mural overlooking the site.
Housing Executive chiefs said a “fly tipping incident” had occurred and it had arranged to have the dumped material removed.
It is unusual for statutory agencies to remove dumped material from loyalist bonfire sites.
Previously, masked contractors working for Belfast City Council, accompanied by police, have taken bonfire material from loyalist areas.
However, no police were visible during yesterday’s clear-up in north Belfast and removal workers were unmasked.
Contractors remove bonfire material from the Mount Vernon area in the shadow of a notorious mural
SDLP councillor Carl Whyte said that the Mount Vernon site appears to have been given preferential treatment.
“While it’s normal for the rest of us to wait weeks or months for fly-tipped rubbish to be collected from places where it is dumped, the Housing Executive appear to be operating an express rubbish collection service for rubbish dumped at Belfast bonfire sites which is deemed undesirable by bonfire bosses,” he said.
Mr Whyte also highlighted the failure to remove the nearby paramilitary mural.
“The fact that NIHE (Housing Executive) is spending public money to remove this dumped material, while leaving bonfire pallets in place and ignoring the illegal and unlawful UVF mural on a building they own just metres away, tells us a lot about where the priorities of this and many government agencies lie,” he said.
A spokesman for the Housing Executive said: “A fly tipping incident occurred in the Mount Vernon area and we arranged to have the items left at the scene removed.”
This time next year the speeches, spin and stalemate of Stormont
will be over as our politicians await their fate in the count centres.
SUZANNE BREEN, Belfast Telegraph, May 7th, 2026
Assembly election ballot boxes will be cracked open as voters deliver their verdict on how our parties have performed.
The price for every decision taken, and avoided, will become clear on May 7, 2027.
Four years ago, Sinn Fein won 29% of the vote to the DUP's 21%, yet it was much closer in terms of seats. Michelle O'Neill's party has 27 to its rival's 26. However, the DUP is more vulnerable in a range of constituencies. Its second seat is in jeopardy in South Antrim. It's no accident that the party has put Trevor Clarke forward on a string of broadcast media panels recently.
The threat could come from the UUP or TUV. Robin Swann stormed to victory in the 2024 Westminster election, but it remains to be seen how many of those votes lent to him will stay with his party.
Jon Burrows would surely have loved for young Antrim and Newtownabbey Mayor Leah Kirkpatrick to join Steve Aiken on the ticket, but she has ruled out Stormont until her children are older.
The TUV's Mel Lucas must fancy his chances for the final seat. He was just 600 first preference votes behind Clarke in 2022. If he comes in ahead of the DUP MLA on the first count next May, he's well positioned.
The DUP's seat in Foyle is at risk due to boundary changes which have seen the number of unionist voters fall as Eglinton moves into East Londonderry. Gary Middleton resigned as an MLA due to mental health issues, with his wife Julie replacing him. There is enormous goodwill towards her in the Assembly as she copes with a difficult situation.
The UUP came within less than 100 votes of taking the seat from the DUP last time. Its candidate next year is likely to be Councillor Darren Guy, but it's hard to see him pulling off what Ryan McCready — who has since left politics — almost managed last time. People Before Profit's Shaun Harkin could be in the running for the fifth seat.
The DUP's second seat in East Londonderry is at risk from the TUV. Maurice Bradley — who is incredibly popular on the ground — is safer than Alan Robinson who was 1,500 votes behind him last time.
This constituency is one of the TUV's best bets with party chairman Allister Kyle who has served on the board of directors of Coleraine FC for over a decade. He secured 11% in the Westminster election — no mean feat given the DUP's Gregory Campbell was engaged in a close battle with Sinn Fein for the seat.
If Kyle is elected it mightn't be at the DUP's expense. Independent unionist Claire Sugden's seat could be vulnerable. Her vote fell from 12% to 9% last time, and she has a lower profile now. Signing Gerry Carroll's motion of no confidence in Education Minister Paul Givan following his trip to Israel may not have gone down well with unionist voters.
The DUP's second seat in East Antrim could be vulnerable. Sammy Wilson lost 5,000 votes in the last Westminster election, but the party likely believes its Gordon Lyons-Cheryl Brownlee Assembly offering will have stronger appeal. The TUV polls well in this constituency, although it has only a skeletal organisation.
West Belfast is the DUP's best chance of a gain in 2027. Boundary changes have increased unionist numbers. The party was out of the traps early to declare Frank McCoubrey as its candidate. The TUV's Ron McDowell considered running in the constituency, but the DUP's advance move makes that very difficult now. McCoubrey's roots in the Shankill run deep. The DUP's biggest enemy will be voter apathy so it will aim to create as much energy and noise as it can to secure the seat which has eluded it for 20 years.
The DUP lost an MLA in North Down to Independent unionist Alex Easton last time, but got it back when Easton became an MP and Peter Martin was co-opted into his seat. Martin should comfortably hold it.
Winning back the second seat lost in North Antrim is less likely. A running-mate for Paul Frew hasn't yet been chosen. Speculation that Ian Paisley could throw his hat into the ring — seeing Stormont as a stepping-stone back to Westminster — is dismissed.
People Before Profit – and Sinn Fein?
While Sinn Fein has dropped in the polls to a five-year-low, one seat is at more risk than others. Bringing four MLAs across the line in West Belfast again will be challenging. Gerry Carroll was elected on the final count last time. However, his strong stance on Gaza and opposition to MLA pay may well put the fourth Shinner at risk.
South Down tops the list of likely Sinn Fein gains. It could have taken three seats had it run a third candidate last time, and won't make the same mistake again.
With a growing nationalist population, Strangford is on both Sinn Fein's and the SDLP's target list. Boundary changes bring in a chunk of Downpatrick which the latter says is one of its best boxes. Yet the general election result indicates that Sinn Fein is ahead under the new boundaries as it well outpolled its rival. The SDLP will need a strong candidate if it's to be in the running.
Kellie Armstrong was a huge vote-puller for Alliance and her decision not to run again will help the nationalist parties. The two parties will also go head-to-head in East Londonderry. Sinn Fein came close to having two MLAs elected last time, and it's again eyeing Cara Hunter's seat.
The SDLP woman shouldn't be under-estimated, and she enjoys a high social media profile.
Sinn Fein is set to run three candidates for the first time in North Belfast. Gerry Kelly is expected to retire, although Carál Ní Chuilín will run again and become the next Assembly speaker. There has been some speculation about a big-name candidate possibly joining the Sinn Fein ticket.
Alliance has more seats in danger than any other party. While it may not have written off its chance of holding its South Down seat, it's up against it.
There's more reason to be hopeful with Sian Mulholland in North Antrim. The staunchly unionist Braid area being moved into East Antrim helps Alliance. Sinn Fein's surplus and transfers from the eliminated SDLP candidate should bring Mulholland home.
Alliance's second seats are seen by opponents as being at risk in Strangford, North Down, East Antrim, Lagan Valley, South Belfast, and even East Belfast.
Kellie Armstrong is a big loss in Strangford, and the party will hope that the SDLP candidate goes out before Sinn Fein so those transfers can keep it in the running.
Alliance appears confident about North Down. Although defeated, Stephen Farry's vote in the last Westminster election would be enough to see both Andrew Muir and Connie Egan elected, but the party's popularity has fallen since 2024. The Greens hope to regain the Assembly seat they lost last time. They will require a very strong candidate to make up that ground.
Alliance isn't complacent about East Antrim yet it believes there are still two non-unionist seats in the constituency, and neither Sinn Fein nor the SDLP have any real operation there. The Alliance ticket is geographically well balanced with Danny Donnelly holding appeal in the Larne end, and Stewart Dickson in Carrickfergus.
Alliance is bullish about retaining its two seats in Lagan Valley. Boundary changes which brought in Aghagallon from Upper Bann means a nationalist seat is now possible in the constituency.
Sinn Fein believes many nationalists who backed Sorcha Eastwood for Westminster will return to the party for the Assembly election. Alliance has a powerful constituency organisation and a good ground game. It argues that those nationalist voters see themselves as being in a new constituency where Sinn Fein don't win. The SDLP also believe it could be competitive in Lagan Valley. The Greens are gunning for Alliance's second seats in East Belfast and South Belfast where Brian Smyth, and likely Aine Groogan, will run. The numbers suggest they'll have an uphill battle but, with the party up to a historic high of 5% in the latest LucidTalk poll due to the Zack Polanski effect, nothing can be ruled out.
Alliance deputy leader Eoin Tennyson faces a big battle in Upper Bann where Sinn Fein is aiming for a second seat. His profile is markedly higher now than it was in 2022. Like Lagan Valley, Alliance is well organised in this constituency.
Cat Nelson will join John O'Dowd on the Sinn Fein ticket. She's widely regarded as a great candidate, although it's a ticket strongly tilted at Lurgan/Craigavon, as opposed to Banbridge, part of the constituency where Alliance is strong. The SDLP vote has completely crumbled in Upper Bann.
Alliance's Nuala McAllister took the North Belfast seat off then SDLP deputy leader Nichola Mallon last time. The SDLP would need a strong candidate with broad appeal if it's to have a chance in the constituency.
Claire Hanna's party will run in West Belfast, but its hopes of taking the seat disappeared with Paul Doherty's resignation.
The party should be expected to translate its leader's personal popularity and Matthew O'Toole's high profile into a second seat in South Belfast. It's likely looking for a female candidate to join O'Toole on the ticket.
Running mate for Deirdre Hargey?
Deirdre Hargey topped the poll in the constituency last time, and it will be interesting to see if Sinn Fein decides to run two candidates next May.
One of the TUV's best chances apart from East Londonderry is Strangford. Young Trinity College Dublin graduate Jonathan Jackson, who works for Jim Allister at Westminster, will be the candidate.
The party has also selected Keith Ratcliffe to go head-to-head with the DUP's Gareth Wilson for the sole unionist seat in Newry and Armagh.
TUV deputy leader Ron McDowell is in with a real chance of taking the DUP's second seat in North Belfast if he runs there. Almost all the UUP's nine seats should be safe. Mike Nesbitt will be handing over to either Richard Smart or Pete Wray in Strangford, and that's the only constituency the party might be concerned about. Despite what his opponents might wish, Jon Burrows' personal popularity means he should have no problems in North Antrim.
There is continuing speculation that the UUP may run two candidates in Upper Bann if the local association selects Councillor Kyle Savage over Doug Beattie.
Burrows' main focus will be on increasing his party's share of the vote to around 15% to get ahead of Alliance (although not in seats) and to close the gap with the DUP. Along with South Antrim, East Antrim is the UUP's best chance of a gain. The party hasn't yet decided who will join John Stewart on the ticket. It will be looking for a professional female candidate in South Belfast where it could make inroads under Burrows' leadership.
Assembly Speakers generally retire after their stint, but Edwin Poots — who is just 60 — is standing again.
The DUP is expected to also run Lord Mayor Tracy Kelly to maximise support by bringing out the working-class loyalist vote and help get Poots across the line.
SAS flag at site of Loughgall ambush a ‘hate crime’ claims sister of IRA man
CONNLA YOUNG, CRIME and SECURITY CORRESPONDENT, Irish News, May 7th, 2026
THE sister of an IRA man killed during the Loughgall ambush has said the flying of an SAS flag at the spot where he died is a “hate crime”.
Mairead Kelly was speaking after the flag was put up close to where the eight republicans were shot dead as they attempted to launch a gun and bomb attack at the Co Armagh RUC station on May 8 1987.
Her brother Patrick Kelly was one of those who died in the deadly ambush.
A passing civilian was also shot dead in what many believe to have been an SAS ‘shoot-to-kill’ operation.
As in previous years, loyalists in Loughgall have put up a flag glorifying the British army regiment ahead of the anniversary.
Ms Kelly has spoken of the distress the flag has caused her.
“Personally I find it relentless and distressing that it is allowed to happen every year and no one is held accountable,“ she said.
“The only people this affects are the families left behind who have not only to deal with the loss of their loved one but also this level of directed hatred.
“Nowhere else would this be permitted – I believe it is a hate crime and should be dealt with as such.”
The Loughgall Truth and Justice Campaign also slammed the presence of the flag.
“The relentless hatred continues at Loughgall,” it said.
“Every year, the steadfast bigotry goes without fear of prosecution or political repercussions and the sole motivation is to cause hurt to the relatives of the those (killed) by the SAS.”
A PSNI spokesperson commented: ‘‘Police are aware of a flag being flown in Loughgall. If any individual believes that a criminal offence has been committed, they are encouraged to report the matter directly to the PSNI via 101 or the PSNI online reporting page.
‘‘Every case reported to police is considered on an individual basis and, where offences have been committed, they will be dealt with. Our Neighbourhood Policing Team officers continue to engage with local community representatives and partner agencies around any complaints about flags.’’
Council 'squandered' £90k fighting Irish street sign at Garvaghy Road: campaigners
ALAN ERWIN, Belfast Telegraph, May 7th, 2026
RESIDENTS HAD WON HIGH COURT CHALLENGE AGAINST LOCAL AUTHORITY
A council has allegedly “squandered” more than £90,000 of tax-payers money in defending a legal battle to get bilingual street signage erected in Portadown's nationalist Garvaghy Road area, it was claimed yesterday.
Irish language campaign group Conradh na Gaeilge hit out after the legal costs spent by Armagh, Banbridge and Craigavon (ABC) Borough Council were revealed.
Earlier this year grandmother Iris Hagan claimed victory in a High Court challenge she mounted after the local authority rejected an application for dual signs at Woodside Hill in the town.
Judicial review proceedings against ABC were formally ended after it was confirmed that a fresh request had been ratified.
Following the outcome Conradh na Gaeilge submitted a Freedom of Information request for the amount spent by the council on legal and consultancy fees.
A response has now confirmed that the total legal costs incurred in the case were £76,630 plus VAT.
Conradh na Gaeilge claimed the fees were “wasted defending the indefensible” after unionist councillors had blocked the overwhelming consent of local residents in Woodside Hill.
The group's language rights co-ordinator, Cuisle Nic Liam, said: “A DUP-led council has squandered (almost) £92,000 of tax-payers money in their failed attempt to deny a dual-language sign.”
Under local authority rules, petitions must obtain an initial support of 33pc of residents, and then be backed by at least two thirds of households on the electoral register.
‘Blinded by bigotry’
Campaigners insisted the required level of support was obtained, with the overwhelming majority of those living in Woodside Hill backing the proposal.
Mrs Hagan launched court action after a majority of councillors voted against the petition.
Her lawyers claimed the decision was irrational and based on opposition among unionist parties to Irish language street signs. At one stage in proceedings it was contended that the decision had been taken in secret because minutes of the council's planning committee were not properly disclosed.
But the challenge ended after the dual-language sign application for Woodside Hill was approved at a meeting in February.
Based on its calculation of the legal costs plus associated VAT, Conradh na Gaeilge said the disclosure came just days after a row broke out over funding for a project which helps councils with Irish-English street sign translations.
DUP Communities Minister Gordon Lyons has denied cutting the £90,000 annual grant for the scheme.
However, Ms Nic Liam claimed: “This is very much a tale of the DUP on one hand stopping £90,000 for the Place-names Project, while wasting £92,000 in attempting to block dual-language signage, and failing to do so.
“The significance of that will not be lost on anyone.
“To us, this illustrates again a party blinded by bigotry, who are willing to go to extreme lengths to oppose the Irish language.”
Armagh, Banbridge and Craigavon Borough Council was approached for comment.
Bobby 'Basher' Bates was someone I wanted to interview.
JOHN LAVERTY, Belfast Telegraph, May 7th, 2026
Maybe it was because the psychotic serial killer was back on Belfast's streets — and therefore theoretically 'available' — at a time when Silence of the Lambs was one of the most popular horror movie rentals in the ubiquitous Xtravision shops.
I imagined myself probing for enlightening answers from the notorious Shankill Butcher, with me adopting Clarice Starling's FBI role and him as Hannibal Lecter.
There was, however, a fundamental difference between those two killers; Lecter was unapologetic, clearly beyond redemption (and entirely fictional), whereas Basher had reportedly found God during a lengthy incarceration and was dedicated to atoning for his appalling, atrocious crimes through community and welfare work. This was what intrigued me.
Unfortunately for the fearsome former UVF man — and my hopes of an interview — the 48-year-old Bates had only been liberated for a few months when he was gunned down outside a drop-in centre on the Woodvale Road.
Ironically, the early morning execution turned out to be revenge for Bates' murder of a fellow loyalist two decades earlier.
It was not, as initially believed, latent IRA retribution for the many young, randomly-chosen Catholics that Basher, 'Master Butcher' Lenny Murphy (whom the Provos had taken out — with a little help from the UDA — in 1982) and their evil, predatory cohorts mercilessly hacked to death using flesher's knives, axes and cleavers.
There were of course plenty of murdering b*****ds on 'both sides' back then — and a weary public becoming largely inured to them — but, notwithstanding the acclimatised psyche of that era, the Butchers' modus operandi still came across as nauseatingly heinous.
Unlike his innocent victims, Bates had no time to plead for mercy before a lone gunman pumped three bullets into his skull, but he was already well aware that only God forgives.
‘Truly reformed’ too late
The murder, 29 years ago, is believed to have been the first personal revenge killing of a released paramilitary here; it was certainly the first inflicted on someone who, according to those who knew Basher, had turned their life completely around — albeit far too late for the grieving families of the victims, whose remains were dumped in back alleys.
Having initially been a 'difficult' prisoner that other Maze inmates lived in fear of, he'd morphed into a reflective, remorseful and inoffensive born-again Christian who was ultimately transferred to Maghaberry and prayed fervently every day for forgiveness and absolution.
(Bizarrely, during his incarceration, a street scene picture from early-Troubles Belfast which just happened to have a teenage Robert 'Bobby' Bates in it was used as the front cover of Dexy's Midnight Runners' hit 1980s album Searching for the Young Soul Rebels...)
Following Bates' release in 1996, Ian Major, the highly-respected Baptist missionary from Lurgan who'd befriended him, told the Belfast Telegraph: “Prisoners like Bobby have a great contribution to make to the community, and the sooner we see all such prisoners like him out, the better.
“He's a truly reformed, fine man, a genuine Christian and one who'd never pose any threat. He'll be missed by the other Christians in jail...”
The redemption arc has echoes of another high-profile serial killer, David Berkowitz — the 'Son of Sam' — who murdered six innocent people in mid-1970s New York around the same time as Bates was preying on, not praying for, similar victims in north and west Belfast. Like the reconciled Shankill Butcher, Berkowitz converted to Christianity after a decade inside, refused to attend parole hearings and wrote to NYC authorities stating: “In all honesty, I believe that I deserve to be in prison for the rest of my life. I have, with God's help, come to terms with my situation and accepted my punishment.”
I reference those cases now, not through a lack of belief that such remorse-filled conversions were genuine, but because we live in an era where they're often met with scepticism.
Recent examples include comedian Russell Brand and rapper Kanye West, neither of whom murdered anyone but both of whom claim to have embraced Christianity at a time when their respective notoriety was clearly damaging their professional careers.
Only God knows
There's a recognisable pattern here: threatened 'cancellation', followed by apparent salvation, reinvention and the public granting the offender “a second chance”.
Suddenly the spiritual 'journey' — not the prior offences or any noticeable accountability for them — becomes the dominant narrative.
No one's suggesting that such episodes of new-found faith aren't genuine, but cynicism over the timing of them is no surprise.
I mentioned Silence of the Lambs earlier, but perhaps the ambiguous denouement to legendary James Cagney gangster movie Angels with Dirty Faces — something that has intrigued film buffs for decades — is more appropriate.
Cagney's hard-as-nails character Rocky Sullivan is sentenced to death for killing hoodlums who'd threatened his childhood friend, Fr Connolly.
As his final hour on Death Row approaches, the priest appeals for Rocky not to go out as a hero to the neighbourhood kids who idolise him — an offer that is flatly refused.
Yet (spoiler alert), on approaching the electric chair — and in front of rapt and stunned reporters — Rocky suddenly breaks down, begging, weeping uncontrollably and screaming for mercy.
Did he die “a coward's death”, as the following morning's banner headlines said, or was he merely pretending in order to see Fr Connolly's prayers answered? God only knows.
New social housing rules offer chance to address refugee fears
NEWTON EMERSON, Irish News, May 7th, 2026
OPINION
When asylum seekers are granted refugee status they become lawful residents of the UK, entitled to access services on the same terms as anyone else
THERE was plenty of coverage and reaction last year when ‘intimidation points’ were removed from social housing by DUP Communities Minister Gordon Lyons.
Yet almost no attention has been paid to a far larger reform of the system due to be implemented later this year.
From September, social housing applicants will continue to be allocated points but they will then be arranged into four bands: urgent, high need, moderate need and general need.
Within each band, time on the waiting list rather than total points will be the deciding factor for housing allocation.
The points thresholds for each band are still being determined and may be flexible – you might be in urgent need with 70 points under some circumstances, or 100 points under others, for example.
But once assessed as urgent, you will effectively be standing in one of four queues.
Everyone in the other three bands is not necessarily standing behind you.
The availability of suitable properties in suitable locations means those queues will shuffle forward one by one as well.
This reform aims to make the system fairer by ensuring people are not endlessly passed over.
At the moment, someone with enough points to be classed as in urgent need might still wait for years watching others leap-frog ahead of them, perhaps with just a few extra points.
Removing intimidation points was an important step towards the new system.
It was considered essential to level the playing field for all victims of violence, including of domestic abuse.
Anyone intimidated from their home still receives enough points to be considered in urgent need of rehousing.
Refugees are another group that will be affected by the reforms.
When asylum seekers are granted refugee status they become lawful residents of the UK, entitled to access services on the same terms as anyone else.
Unintentionally homeless
They are also required to leave their Home Office-provided accommodation, which makes them unintentionally homeless.
That usually entitles them to 70 points, enough to require urgent rehousing. Health and social needs might add another 40 points.
The shortage of housing means most refugees first go into emergency accommodation, a system also in crisis. Six months there adds another 20 points. Overcrowding and shared facilities in emergency accommodation might add another 50 points.
“ It has become impossible for politicians to mention housing of any description without a deluge of responses claiming anything built will be going to immigrants
By this stage, a refugee family can have more points than most people on the waiting list.
Under the banded system, such families will still be considered in urgent need but they will be standing in line in the urgent queue.
The banded system was recommended by a Stormont review in 2017, long before there were notable numbers of refugees in Northern Ireland.
The new system should have been implemented by 2019 but collapses of devolution, the pandemic, plus the usual dithering intervened.
However, many of the researchers and consultees who contributed to the report considered the position of ethnic minorities and immigrants, including refugees.
Their view was that a banded system would be both fairer and safer, by correcting dangerous perceptions of people jumping the queue.
That has only become more important as the number of refugees in Northern Ireland has increased, but it requires transparency.
The Housing Executive does not report statistics on refugees and will only release data on ‘non-British or Irish citizens’ in response to Freedom of Information requests.
Official Coyness fuels racism
In 2024, this category accounted for almost 1,000 of the roughly 5,000 households in emergency accommodation.
Last year, it accounted for 457 or 7.4% of all social housing allocations, up from 5.3% at the start of the decade.
The nationality of another 4.9% of social housing recipients was listed as “unknown”.
While many of these people will be EU citizens, in the absence of further clarity it is fair to assume a solid and rising number are refugees.
The emergency accommodation figure indicates the size of the pipeline from asylum seeker to social housing recipient.
Assumptions that refugees are obtaining social housing are certainly widespread. It has become impossible for politicians to mention housing of any description without a deluge of responses claiming anything built will be going to immigrants.
This belief fuels a cycle of racist hostility. It also saps public support for social housing and even for house-building in general.
The introduction of the banded system is an opportunity to address these fears.
It is not a panacea: in Britain, which has had the same system for two decades, official coyness over nationality figures has continued stoking suspicion and resentment.
Reassuring people that the system is fair means being open about the exact impact refugees are having on social housing.
For some in authority, that appears to remain a step too far.
Health service got £81 million from a charge on immigrants
ALLAN PRESTON, Irish News, May 7th, 2026
NORTHERN Ireland’s health service received more than £81m last year from a tax on immigrants using the NHS.
The Immigration Health Surcharge is a mandatory upfront payment towards the NHS for most people applying for a visa in the UK, now costing £1,035 a year for adults.
Exceptions include certain health care workers, asylum seekers and those applying for indefinite leave to enter or remain.
Figures revealed in an Assembly Question to the Health Minister Mike Nesbitt by DUP MLA Diane Forsythe showed the department has received more than £239m from the tax in the last five years.
This has increased each year from £10m in 2020/21 to over £81m in 2024/25 – a jump of 800%.
“Immigration Health Surcharge (IHS) is collected by the Home Office as part of the UK visa and immigration application process. As such, the IHS is operated and monitored by the Home Office,” Mr Nesbitt said.
Migrants making ‘substantial financial contributions to our public services’
“All UK administrations then receive a pro-rata share of the income generated, in line with the Barnett formula.”
Mr Nesbitt added that the IHS was impacted by the pandemic due to “important exemptions and refunds,” particularly for health and social care workers.
When it was first introduced in 2015, the IHS cost £200 a year for adults before being increased to the current rate of £1,035.
By 2024, the scheme was estimated to have generated a total of £6.9bn, according to the House of Commons Library.
Farage wants fees increase
In November, the Reform Party leader Nigel Farage called for the charge to be increased even further to £2,718 a year, claiming it would raise £5bn for the economy.
Speaking to The Irish News last year, Ulster University academic Dr Luqman Saeed from Pakistan explained how his family pays around £4,000 a year to use the NHS.
Challenging the incorrect assumption that all migrants in Northern Ireland were on benefits, he said: “That’s what the perception is. But not only do I work and pay my taxes, I pay a surcharge for the NHS which at the moment is about £1,000 per year, per person.
“So for a family of four, we’re paying an extra £4,000 a year on top of taxes and national insurance.
“I cannot be on benefits, because my visa would be revoked without question.”
North West Migrants Forum CEO Lilian Seenoi Barr commented: “We do not see this surcharge as an added burden on families who come here to work and build a future. We see it as a fair contribution into the healthcare system by those who live and work here.
“Since 2020, close to £240 million has flowed into the economy through fees attached to the majority of visa applications.
“Last year alone almost £82 million was paid directly from the pockets of visa applicants and their dependants to access the healthcare system we often take for granted.
“These are not insignificant figures. They demonstrate that migrants are not only contributing through their labour and skills but are also making substantial financial contributions to public services.
“The disappointing reality is that these positive contributions are rarely highlighted in public debate.
“Instead of focusing solely on what migrants may cost, we should also acknowledge what they give back, economically, socially and culturally, and recognise the enormous value they bring when given the chance to thrive.”
