DANIEL LUNDY LOSES CHALLENGE AGAINIST PROSECUTION FOLLOWING PARADE OBSERVATION
4554
post-template-default,single,single-post,postid-4554,single-format-standard,bridge-core-3.0.1,qode-page-transition-enabled,ajax_fade,page_not_loaded,,qode_grid_1300,footer_responsive_adv,hide_top_bar_on_mobile_header,qode-child-theme-ver-1.0.0,qode-theme-ver-28.7,qode-theme-bridge,qode_header_in_grid,wpb-js-composer js-comp-ver-6.8.0,vc_responsive

DANIEL LUNDY LOSES CHALLENGE AGAINIST PROSECUTION FOLLOWING PARADE OBSERVATION

DANIEL LUNDY LOSES CHALLENGE AGAINIST PROSECUTION FOLLOWING PARADE OBSERVATION

Daniel Lundy is represented by KRW LAW LLP in his civil law challenge to his arrest by the PSBI his and prosecution by the PPS following his observation at an Orange Order Parade in Ardoyne in 2012.

 

Mr Lundy is a member of Greater Ardoyne Residents Collective (GARC).

 

Mr Lundy has always maintained that he was observing the parade by the Loyal Order.

 

Following his arrest, prosecution and acquittal, Mr Lundy filed a civil action against the PSNI and the PPS in which he claimed both his arrest and prosecution breached his human rights and was discriminatory. He claimed that he was arrested by the PSNI based upon an assessment of his perceived political and religious views; Mr Lundy maintained that he was engaged in a peaceful observation of the parade to monitor any breaches of a Parade’s Commission ruling on the Loyal Order parade.

 

Judge Devlin dismissed Mr Lundy’s civil action.  However, he did note that any protest by GARC and others, including Mr Lundy, in response to the Loyal Order parade, was silent.

 

Mr Lundy will lodge an appeal against the judgment.

 

Claire McGoldrick, solicitor for Mr Lundy, said following the judgment:

 

“Whilst we and Mr Lundy are disappointed with the outcome of today’s judgment, we are confident that our there are good grounds of appeal to the High Court and we have been instructed by Mr Lundy to pursue this matter on his behalf. This is an important issue of human rights and discrimination on a controversial matter relevant to a number of communities in this jurisdiction.”