THE Supreme Court's judgement on the PSNI's policing of flag protests highlights the increasing credibility of the rule of law here in the north.
Too often in this society, the rule of law has historically been abused or confused, misapplied or misunderstood. Individual experiences and perspectives will never prompt uniform analyses. But the broad tide of history demonstrates just how much progress has happened.
In January 1969, my late father Oliver wrote to the `prime minister of Northern Ireland, Terence O’Neill, complaining strongly about the RUC's partisan decision to let illegal protestors block the lawful Peoples Democracy civil rights march in Antrim town. He wrote:
"It is my considered opinion that on this occasion the police failed to perform their duty, by:
a. permitting the formation of an assembly which had as its objective the publicly-expressed intent of preventing other citizens from exercising their democratic rights;
b. failing to arrest the easily-identifiable ring-leaders of a mob, members of which were engaging in threatening and abusive behaviour, likely to result in a breach of the peace;
c. failing to use the adequate forces then at their disposal, to disperse the above-mentioned unlawful assembly."
Mr O'Neill replied personally, by return post. He stoutly defended the RUC's operational decision-making, but without any detailed investigation, independent scrutiny or objective oversight. He stated: "I doubt very much whether any improvement in communal relations will be achieved by forcing processions through areas hostile to them by using large numbers of police or even troops. I agree that lawful marches should not be hampered or coerced but I am sure you for your part will agree that a march, even though lawful, can also be thoroughly irresponsible and ultimately destructive of the peace of the community."
Quite. The historical ironies abound. The rule of law was previously polluted in the north. But today it has become a core plank of democratic development.
It's about how society fully and fairly establishes the legal norms that should affect all citizens equally. And - where there are operational flaws or transgressions of power - the rule of law is also the framework that provides effective options for accountability and correction.
The rule of law is the imperfect democratic heartbeat of public government: reliant on careful consideration of evidence; continuous gestation of argument; enlightened development and interpretation of laws and decisions; and, crucially, an awareness of the evolving social terrain.
Last week's judgement looked in detail at the PSNI's flawed operational decisions in late 2012 and early 2013 relating to policing of flags protests. In particular, it considered the negative impact upon the human rights of people living in Short Strand.
In summary, the PSNI had the power to stop illegal flag protests. The case was "not about the sincerity and authenticity" of police efforts, but about the PSNI's "misapprehension of the true legal position rather than a willful disregard for it". The Supreme Court upheld a "definite area of discretion" for police but found that they had "misconstrued" their powers in this situation.
The police have accepted the outcome.
The reformed procedures, representativeness, skill-set and structures of our courts - including High Court, through Appeal Court, to Supreme Court - show the rule of law working effectively. Those reform mechanics should continue to be deepened and broadened across the entire public sector.
Yes, the rule of law can be complicated and complex. But - at its best - it provides the space and system for democratic outcomes that systematically improve society (in this case, future police decision-making).
When politics interacts with the rule of law, there are often tensions. Motives are selectively questioned, decisions are challenged on a partisan basis, and judgements are often cherry-picked.
That is the bread and butter of politics. And multiple perspectives can provide an important safeguard against complacency.
However, problems arise when poorly formed political interventions unfairly impugn the integrity or motives of law officers, whether accidentally or intentionally.
Much greater care is now needed with such public commentary - across the board. Too often, criticisms of judges, prosecutors, defence solicitors, and police officers, have confused the actors with the actions. The consequences are not just personalised for individuals. They are also corrosive for wider democratic discourse.
The rule of law neither belongs to any side nor stands above scrutiny. But it has evolved and improved significantly in the past twenty years.
And the growing integrity and impact of the rule of law - albeit imperfect - must be recognised and defended as one of the north's primary successes since 1998. Consistent decision-making remains the goal. Continuous oversight remains the guarantor.
