Four years ago, Democratic Unionist Party MP Ian Paisley jnr wrote to First Minister Peter Robinson telling him that he would be "mad" to proceed with the proposed appointment of John Larkin QC as attorney general. The North Antrim MP may have allowed himself a rare smile yesterday as consternation spread across the political scene at Larkin's latest foray into an area generally regarded as outside his office's remit.
Dealing with the past remains one of the most jagged-edged issues in Northern politics, as the families of victims clamour for the truth about the Disappeared, the UVF bombing of McGurk's bar in Belfast in which 15 people were killed in 1971, the IRA car-bomb massacre of nine residents of Claudy in 1972, the "collusion" killings highlighted in the book Lethal Allies and scores of other unsolved Troubles atrocities. Devising a mechanism for dealing with these matters is among the tasks before US envoy Richard Haass, currently chairing interparty talks scheduled to end before Christmas. (The other issues on Haass's agenda are flags and parades.)
Uproar
Larkin has now publicly urged the abandonment of efforts to get to the bottom of killings committed before the 1998 agreement and suggested – although he dislikes the word – an amnesty for the perpetrators. Uproar was inevitable.
Paisley's warning to the First Minister referred to a case in 2005 which had resulted in a complaint against the QC being upheld by the professional conduct committee of the Bar Council. It was found that he had refused to accept instructions from a particular solicitor. He was censured and fined £5,000.
However, a second complaint by Paisley was rejected: this had to do with a case in 2009 in which Paisley risked imprisonment for refusing to name a source. Larkin told the court: “Mr Paisley appears to want it too much. Brandishing custody before Mr Paisley appears to be like brandishing a whip before Max Mosely.”
The Bar Council ruled that this was “a legitimate use of language”.
One of the reasons Larkin has come through unscathed from this and other incidents of acrimony may have to do with his “sound” attitude to abortion – with which Paisley himself is likely to agree.
In a debate on Radio Ulster's Sunday Sequence in May 2008, before his appointment as AG, Larkin likened the abortion of a severely disabled foetus to "putting a bullet in the back of the head of the child two days after it is born".
Following his appointment as AG in 2010, Larkin is said to have "taken control" of discussion of abortion guidelines for the North. The minutes of a meeting of Stormont's all-party pro-life group in January 2012 record Jim Wells of the DUP saying that "Mr Larkin had taken control and his views on abortion were sound".
In October the same year, Larkin intervened as the Assembly’s justice committee prepared to discuss the recent opening of a Marie Stopes clinic in Belfast, offering to call and question witnesses, including witnesses from the clinic, to obtain injunctions and, if deemed appropriate, to call in the police.
In the event, even committee members opposed to the clinic balked at giving the AG the unprecedented role which he had, in effect, applied for.
The Belfast Telegraph commented at the time that Larkin was inviting the committee to "turn itself into something resembling a Star Chamber to put the Marie Stopes clinic on trial".
'Untenable'
A Guardian editorial told Larkin to "stop stirring the Marie Stopes pot . . . If he intervenes again on the matter his position as chief legal adviser is surely untenable."
Larkin has also appeared to stretch the limits of his office in relation to gay adoption. In June last year, he wrote to the European Court of Human Rights as it considered a case in which an Austrian lesbian was seeking the right to adopt the natural child of her partner of 17 years. Larkin proposed that the court hear his argument against the woman’s case. The judges accepted a written submission from him before finding for the lesbian plaintiff.
The attorneys general of England and Scotland separately expressed surprise and dismay at Larkin’s incursion into the litigation.
It is fair to speculate that if Larkin held different personal views on “moral issues” his expansive understanding of his office’s role would have embroiled him in considerable controversy long before now. He’d be much better known across the island. We would likely have heard loud calls for his resignation.
Stormont politicians and the various commentators who over the past 24 hours have been expressing disapproval of Larkin’s latest sortie into territory where no one had anticipated he might venture would be in a more plausible place if they had shown concern at his previous interventions in matters many consider are just as important and none of his business.
Since his appointment, he has made himself one of the most influential figures in politics in the North. Perhaps his future actions will attract more scrutiny, and not just in the North.
