Law Society 'caved in' to protesters when they cancelled conference: Malone House Group
and live on Freeview channel 276
Former Lord Chief Justice Sir Declan Morgan – who is the head of a new body tasked with examining hundreds of unresolved Troubles deaths – had been due to be the main speaker at the Law Society event in Belfast this Friday.
However, the professional body for lawyers said that with a number of legal challenges to the laws underway, it would postpone the event until the new arrangements have been tested in the courts.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdThe Malone House Group (MHG) has accused the Law Society of “giving less than credible reasons” for abandoning the event, and added: “These included the continuance of legacy litigation in the courts, something that was ongoing before they planned their conference.
“Another reason was concern about a planned picket by victims' groups protesting over a panel of speakers that they largely agreed with. In reality the Law Society caved in to those who were opposed to it giving a platform to the former Lord Chief Justice”.
The MHG spokesperson added: “The Law Society is plainly a victim of self-inflicted cancel culture”.
The NI Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act received royal assent last week despite widespread opposition from political parties and victims’ organisations.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdThe most controversial aspects of the act include a limited form of immunity from prosecution for Troubles-related offences to those who co-operate with the new Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery (ICRIR) – headed by Sir Declan Morgan. It will also halt future civil cases and inquests.
A number of victims’ organisations had said they would picket the event on Friday.
Law Society president Brian Archer said he believes it is appropriate for the Law Society to “hold events such as this to inform and educate our members,” and added: “Freedom of expression and debate is an intrinsic and important aspect of the rule of law. However, we recognise the strength of feeling in opposition to this Act”.