26 Nov Statement of behalf of our client Naoise Ó Cuilin
We issue this statement in response to the false, erroneous and irresponsible information circulated in recent days.
It has been alleged – particularly on social media – that our client was “involved in the damage” to the portrait of DUP peer Lord Wallace Browne at Belfast City Hall.
This allegation is entirely false, baseless, and malicious.
For absolute clarity, and on our client’s behalf, I state unequivocally that our client did not cause any damage whatsoever to the portrait of Lord Wallace Browne. Any suggestion to the contrary is wholly unfounded.
Our client responded positively to a request by police to attend voluntarily for police interview and was prepared to give an account. However, the paucity of evidence against our client was such that I advised him that there was nothing requiring an account, and that he should therefore exercise his lawful right to silence. This statutory protection exists for all citizens.
It is deeply improper that certain parties are now attempting to misrepresent the exercise of this legal right as implying guilt. Such insinuations are entirely rejected.
Our client is a university graduate, has been in continuous employment since graduation, has no criminal record, and has never previously been accused of any criminal offence. The attempts to malign our client’s character in the absence of any evidence are wholly unjustified.
Our client has worked continuously in the youth and community sector, on multiple projects which focus on addressing division, hate and sectarianism.
Our client is appalled by the false commentary directed at him, particularly given the clear position arising from the investigation.
Our client continues to take legal advice and reserves all rights in respect of the false claims and commentary published to date.
It is wholly inappropriate for any individual, organisation, commentator, or public figure to identify someone as a “suspect” in circumstances where the Public Prosecution Service has determined that there is insufficient evidence to bring any criminal charge.
Such conduct:
1. Undermines the presumption of innocence
The PPS decision means that my client is to be regarded as innocent in law. Persisting in identifying them as a suspect is fundamentally contrary to this principle.
2. Creates a significant risk of defamation
As the PPS found that the very modest evidential test was not met, any suggestion or implication of wrongdoing is legally reckless and potentially defamatory.
3. Threatens the proper administration of justice
Public figures and commentators have a responsibility to support, rather than subvert, the justice system. Imputing guilt after the prosecuting authority has ruled out charges risks fostering a trial by media—a practice that is unfair, unethical, and corrosive to the integrity of the courts.
4. Sets a dangerous precedent
Misrepresenting an uncharged person as a suspect creates an irresponsible public narrative and models poor standards in civic discourse.
We shall continue to monitor public discourse and will advise our client accordingly.
Niall Murphy