Proposals to fly the union flag all year round at war memorials across Ards and North Down Borough Council were unlawfully blocked, loyalist activist Jamie Bryson has told the High Court.
He claimed the local authority failed to meet the required legal test when it deployed a call-in mechanism to question the policy.
Insisting the case had nothing to do with politics, Mr Bryson argued: “This is not about the merits of flying a flag, this is a pure question of law.”
Plans to have the union flag flown at cenotaphs 365 days a year were expected to be put in place following a proposal by unionist councillors earlier this year.
But some other representatives requested a call-in motion - a method used for reconsideration of decisions which could have a disproportionate adverse impact on any section of the community.
Under the terms of the mechanism an 80% super majority is required for the original proposal to be successfully passed again.
Amid claims that Alliance Party and SDLP councillors backed the call-in, Mr Bryson sought a judicial review against the council’s decision.
He is seeking a declaration which would reinstate the original plans for war memorial sites.
The high-profile figure, who represented himself in the challenge, contended that the call-in was unlawful due to a lack of definitive evidence of an adverse impact.
“They have put their case on the basis of potential and supposition, but that’s not the test,” he submitted.
“The political background is irrelevant… what matters is the statutory test.
“That’s all the court has to consider, everything else is just white smoke.”
In further grounds of challenge, Mr Bryson claimed the council acted irrationally and deployed the call-in mechanism outside a legally permitted time limit.
Philip McAteer, responding for the local authority, told the court there were nuances and complexities to how it dealt with the process, including consideration of census data and other material.
“This is an assessment of proportionality in respect of adverse impact… one can understand why the necessary language can’t have binary precision,” he said.
Judgment was reserved in Mr Bryson’s application for leave to seek a judicial review.
Mr Justice Humphreys told the parties: “I will need to reflect on some of the points that have been very well argued by both of you.”