E, Re Application for Judicial Review

[1] This is an application by the mother of one of the children affected by what has become known as 'the Holy Cross dispute'. The applicant seeks judicial review in the form of a declaration that the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland failed to secure the effective implementation of the criminal law and to ensure safe passage for her and her daughter to the Holy Cross primary school for girls on Ardoyne Road, Belfast.

[2] From September 2001 until mid-November 2001 children and their parents and relatives who walked along Ardoyne Road to and from the school were the target of attacks and intimidation from individuals some of whom were local residents; others have been described as loyalists. This campaign is said to have been prompted by the avowed failure of the government to provide proper services to the local community. It was claimed that the protest was designed to secure better provision for the area. The judicial review application challenges the manner in which the protest was policed.

Perhaps the most significant statement in this passage (in relation to the present case) is that academic disputes should not be heard unless there is a good reason in the public interest to do so.

[5] For the applicant Mr Treacy QC has submitted strongly that there is a compelling public interest in allowing the case to proceed. He suggested that this protest campaign had excited intense attention and that controversy continues to rage about the manner in which it was handled. He contended that if the police actions were amenable to judicial review it must be right that they should be subject to the scrutiny that the continuation of these proceedings will provide even though the dispute is no longer active.

[9] An anterior question requires to be addressed, however. Is the dispute between the parties academic? In this context, 'academic' must mean of purely theoretical or speculative interest. It appears to me that the onus of establishing that the dispute is now of academic interest must rest with the party who asserts it � in this case the respondents. It is therefore for the respondents to persuade the court that a decision on the application will carry no practical benefit.