Former Mid and East Antrim chief faces prosecution over alleged deleted emails
Anne Donaghy has 'denied any wrongdoing during her time in office'.
A solicitor of Ms Donaghy added she will 'vehemently contest these three technical offences'.
Northern Ireland's Public Prosecution Service (PPS) on Friday confirmed that it has taken a decision to prosecute two people following a police probe into the alleged deletion of emails related to a freedom of information (FOI) request at the council in 2021.
It comes after a BBC Spotlight programme reported police searches of the council offices in October 2021 and April 2022 were connected to an alleged attempt to delete correspondence around a decision to withdraw council staff involved in post-Brexit trade agreement checks at Larne Port.
During a time of political tension over the introduction of an 'Irish Sea border', a number of staff were temporarily removed from the posts for their safety following alleged threats from loyalist paramilitaries.
Department of Agriculture staff were also withdrawn from the port on February 1 2021 amid security concerns.
However police later said they were not aware of any credible threats.
A PPS spokesperson said one individual is being prosecuted for three offences under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, and a second individual is being prosecuted for one offence under the same Act.
'The charges relate to offences allegedly committed in April 2021 and June 2021,' they said.
In total four individuals were reported on a police investigation file submitted to the PPS for consideration.
The PPS said a senior prosecutor carefully considered all the available evidence and applied the test for prosecution before taking decisions in relation to the four reported individuals.
'It has been determined that the available evidence in relation to the other two reported individuals is insufficient in order to provide a reasonable prospect of conviction and therefore the test for prosecution is not met in relation to them,' they said.
Solicitor Kevin Winters said Ms Donaghy has an outstanding High Court legal action against the council alleging discrimination.
'Today we received notification that she will be prosecuted on three counts of allegedly concealing records, aiding and abetting another person to erase or conceal a record and attempting to erase or conceal a record contrary to FOIA and other legislation,' he said.
'Our client denies any wrongdoing during her time in office and will vehemently contest these three technical offences.
'Central to her defence will be very strong allegations of investigative bias over the manner in which this inquiry has been conducted.
'Those same allegations have been the subject of a long-running complaint to PONI, the out workings of which will feature in any trial, if one is ever directed.'
He added: 'Anne Donaghy has an impeccable record and service working for the council.
'She wants to put on record her sincere thanks for the all the support she has received from former colleagues in council and beyond in the wider community.
'Our client takes a lot of strength from this and knows it will serve her well going forward when confronting what are essentially contrived politically motivated allegations.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NBC News
3 hours ago
- NBC News
To fight Trump's funding freezes, states try a new gambit: Withholding federal payments
Democratic legislators mostly in blue states are attempting to fight back against President Donald Trump's efforts to withhold funding from their states with bills that aim to give the federal government a taste of its own medicine. The novel and untested approach — so far introduced in Connecticut, Maryland, New York and Wisconsin — would essentially allow states to withhold federal payments if lawmakers determine the federal government is delinquent in funding owed to them. Democrats in Washington state said they are in the process of drafting a similar measure. These bills still have a long way to go before becoming law, and legal experts said they would face obstacles. But they mark the latest efforts by Democrats at the state level to counter what they say is a massive overreach by the Trump administration to cease providing federal funding for an array of programs that have helped states pay for health care, food assistance and environmental protections. 'Trump is illegally withholding funds that have been previously approved,' said David Moon, the Democratic majority leader in Maryland's House of Delegates. 'Without these funds, we are going to see Maryland residents severely harmed — we needed more options on the table for how Maryland could respond and protect its residents.' Moon said the two bills are in response to various Trump actions that have withheld federal funding for programs that pay to assist with children's mental health and flood wall protections. He compared the bills he's introduced to traditional 'collections' actions that one would take against a 'deadbeat debtor.' Even if they were not to move forward, Moon said the bills would help to bring about an audit and accounting of federal money to the state. Early in his second term, Trump's Department of Government Efficiency unilaterally froze billions of dollars in funding for programs that states rely on. He's also threatened to withhold federal funding from states that implement policies he politically disagrees with, including 'sanctuary' policies for undocumented immigrants, though some such freezes have been halted by courts. A Trump White House spokesperson didn't respond to questions for this story. Wisconsin state Rep. Renuka Mayadev, a Democrat, introduced two near-identical bills that she said would seek to compel the federal government to release money it has withheld that had previously been paying for Department of Agriculture programs that help farmers, and for child care centers that mostly serve low-income families. 'We've seen the Trump administration is willfully breaking the law by holding back federal funds to which Wisconsinites are legally entitled. So these bills are really about providing for a legal remedy and protecting Wisconsinites,' she said. In all four states, the bills direct state officials to withhold payments owed by the states to the federal government if federal agencies have acted in contravention of judicial orders or have taken unlawful actions to withhold funds previously appropriated by Congress. Payments available for withholding include the federal taxes collected from the paychecks of state employees, as well as grant payments owed back to the federal government. In Wisconsin, the bills are unlikely to move forward because Republicans control both chambers of the Legislature. But the trajectory of the bills in Maryland, New York and Connecticut — where Democrats control the legislatures and governorships — is an open question. The same is true in Washington, where Democratic lawmakers plan to introduce similar bills next session. 'It's a novel concept,' said Washington state Sen. Manka Dhingra. 'I don't think states have ever been in this position before … where there's someone making arbitrary decisions on what to provide funding for and what not to provide funding for, contrary to current rules and laws and congressional allocation of funds.' Legal experts have raised substantial questions about the hurdles such bills would face if they were enacted. For one, they said, the U.S. Constitution's supremacy clause clearly gives the federal government precedence over states, which could complicate legal arguments defending such laws — even though it remains an open legal question whether the executive branch has the power to single-handedly control funding. More immediate practical obstacles, they explained, stem from the fact that there's vastly more money flowing from the federal government to the states than the other way around. 'So withholding state payments to the federal government, even if there were no other obstacles, isn't likely to change very much,' said David Super, a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center who specializes in administrative and constitutional law. Super added that states withholding money could potentially further worsen the status of programs affected by federal cuts. 'There's also the potential that some of the money going to the federal government has to be paid as a condition for the state receiving one or another kind of benefit for itself or for its people,' he said. 'The federal government could say, 'You didn't make this payment, therefore you're out of this program completely.'' But that doesn't mean states, working in the current hostile political environment, shouldn't try, said Jon Michaels, a professor at the UCLA School of Law who specializes in the separation of powers and presidential power. 'Where can you try to claw back money in different ways? Not because it's going to make a huge material difference for the state treasury or for the people of the state, but just to essentially show the federal government like, 'Hey, we know what you're doing and we don't like it,'' he said. 'States need to be enterprising and creative and somewhat feisty in figuring out their own scope of authority and the ways in which they can challenge the law.' But another potential drawback is one foreseen by the Democratic lawmakers themselves: further retribution from Trump. 'We would all be foolish to not acknowledge that the feds hold more cards than states do with respect to the budget,' said Moon, the Maryland legislator. 'There's certainly a risk of retaliation by the White House.'
Spectator
6 hours ago
- Spectator
Brexit betrayal is driving Tory voters into Farage's arms
Since returning to the political front line during the middle of last year's election campaign, Nigel Farage has enjoyed remarkable success in his stated quest for Reform for replace the Conservatives as the principal party of the right in Britain. The latest British Social Attitudes (BSA) report, published this week, helps explain how and why he is succeeding. Boris Johnson rose to success in 2019 thanks to his ability to appeal to socially conservative Britain. These were the voters that provided the core vote for Leave in 2016 and which now voted to 'get Brexit done'. However, disenchanted with how Brexit has turned out and deeply distrustful of how the country is being governed, over the last twelve months these voters have been flocking to Reform in ever-growing numbers. Leave voters are decidedly unhappy about how Brexit has turned out In 2019, no less than two-thirds (66 per cent) of socially conservative Britons, who, apart from backing Brexit, tend to be concerned about immigration and to take an 'anti-woke' stance on so-called 'culture wars' issues, voted Conservative. Equally, 71 per cent of those who had voted Leave in 2016 were in the Conservative camp then too. But as the party slumped to its worst ever defeat last year, those numbers tumbled. Just 32 per cent of socially conservative Britain voted Conservative, as did just one in three (33 per cent) of those who had voted Leave. Most of this decline was occasioned by voters switching to Reform, who matched the Tories' tally among Leave voters (winning 34 per cent) and almost did so among social conservatives (28 per cent). Since the election, Tory losses among those central to Boris Johnson's election victory have simply continued apace. When respondents to BSA were recontacted in March, Reform, with 37 per cent support, were now clearly ahead among socially conservative voters, while the Conservatives were well behind on just 26 per cent. Indeed, social conservatives were now barely any more likely than those who are neither socially conservative nor liberal to say they would vote Conservative. Meanwhile, support for the Conservatives among Leave voters was now down to just 26 per cent, while Reform, with 45 per cent, was well ahead of all the competition. In contrast, just 5 per cent of Remain supporters were backing Reform. Reform's support is not simply a general protest vote; rather it is very distinctively a cry of disappointment and disenchantment by pro-Brexit Britain. Leave voters are decidedly unhappy about how Brexit has turned out. In the wake of record levels of immigration, no less than 62 per cent feel that immigration has been higher as a result of Brexit, the very opposite of what most of them had anticipated in 2016. Meanwhile, in an era of poor economic performance, 38 per cent have concluded that the economy has been made worse off by Brexit too. For a minority, these perceptions have been accompanied by a change of mind about Brexit. But for others, they have served to undermine their trust and confidence in how Britain is being governed. When it was first delivered, Brexit boosted trust and confidence among Leave voters. For example, in 2020 approaching half (46 per cent) felt that little or no improvement was needed to how Britain was being governed, almost twice the equivalent proportion among Remain supporters (24 per cent). Now, however, only 14 per cent of Leave voters take that view, even lower than the equivalent figure, 19 per cent, among those who backed Remain. And a low level of trust and confidence is a hallmark of Remain voters. In last year's election, just over a quarter (26 per cent) of those who think Britain's system of government is in need of improvement voted Reform, compared with just 5 per cent of those who feel the system needs little or no improvement. The party's name, 'Reform UK', encapsulates well the outlook of many of the party's supporters. Meanwhile, the rise of social media appears to have created something of a breeding ground for Reform support. Even though the party is backed predominantly by older voters, with those who primarily rely on social media to follow the news being predominantly young, support for the party was five points higher last year among social media users than it was among those reliant on other media for their political news. Nigel Farage's TikTok posts are, perhaps, not just reaching out to younger voters after all. In any event, the challenge posed by Reform to the future of the Conservative party is profound. Not only has it lost most of the pro-Brexit vote it won in 2019, but its grip on what has long been the core of its support – those on the right economically rather than culturally – is now under threat too. In our March survey, Reform (on 28 per cent) were only narrowly behind the Conservatives (31 per cent) among this group, something that Ukip never threatened to do. Command of the political right in Britain is up for grabs as never before.
Scotsman
8 hours ago
- Scotsman
How Edinburgh helped decide Britain's relationship with Europe 50 years ago
Britain's vote to leave the European Union in 2016 - nine years ago this month - was a close-run thing and came as a shock whose repercussions are still being felt today. Sign up to our daily newsletter Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to Edinburgh News, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... But it was a different story in the UK's first ever national referendum in 1975, when voters decisively backed British membership of what was then known as the European Economic Community (EEC) or Common Market. While the Brexit result - 52 per cent to 48 in favour of Leave - reflected a divided nation and forced the departure of Tory prime minister David Cameron, the vote 50 year ago was 67 per cent to 33 to stay in and represented a convincing victory for Labour's Harold Wilson. Prime Minister Harold Wilson goingto vote on referendum day 1975, accompanied by his wife Mary. Picture: Keystone/Getty Images. | Getty Images Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad He had called the referendum, held on Thursday June 5, 1975, to allow the British people the say they had not been given when Ted Heath's Tory government took the country into the EEC without any ballot on January 1, 1973. Labour had made a manifesto pledge to renegotiate the UK's terms of membership and then hold a referendum to decide whether Britain remained in. It was also a way to deal with the internal tensions inside the Labour party, where there were passionate pro-Europeans as well as fierce critics of "the Market". There was much debate about the rights and wrongs of holding a referendum. Opponents called it "un-British", "a constitutional monstrosity" and incompatible with parliamentary government. But supporters pointed out referendums had been used in Northern Ireland and the Commonwealth and recalled that Ted Heath had promised he would take Britain into the EEC with "the full-hearted consent of the British people". The ballot paper in the 1975 referendum asked people to vote Yes or No to staying in the EEC | x Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Talks with Europe, led by Harold Wilson and Foreign Secretary James Callaghan, did not achieve the "fundamental renegotiation" they had wanted. But they did secure a partial refund of Britain's inflated financial contribution to the EEC. They were also helped by a change of leadership in both France and Germany, rising world food prices which closed the gap with those in Europe and support from Commonwealth countries for Britain staying in. The campaign saw politicians from different parties co-operating - with varying degrees of enthusiasm - on each side of the debate. There were two umbrella organisations - Britain in Europe running the Yes campaign and the National Referendum Campaign co-ordinating the No side. There was some debate among politicians on the issue of democracy and loss of sovereignty. But polls consistently found the topics which voters were interested in were food prices and jobs. Leading Labour anti-Marketeer Barbara Castle made a well-publicised shopping trip to Brussels to show prices were higher inside the Common Market. But in retaliation, the pro-EEC campaign sent one of their members to Norway - which had voted against joining - to prove that shopping was even more expensive outside. Barbara Castle and helpers display a variety of goods purchased in London and Brussels to support their claim that prices were higher inside the EEC. Picture: Keystone/Getty Images | Getty Images Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The Evening News organised its own shopping expedition, running a competition to choose two shoppers and sending them to Amsterdam as guests of the Dutch Dairy Board. "I must admit I was quite shocked to see that most of their food in tins and packets with well-known brand names were twice or three times more expensive than in Scotland," said Mrs Ella Daniel, 31, from Cortorphine. "But their fruit and vegetables were about the same price or cheaper and much nicer and fresher looking, They also have a greater selection. Alcohol is also cheaper." Mrs Kathy Urquhart, 60, from Kingsknowe, said: "The Dutch also have a generally higher standard of living with bigger wages than here. But we were told they do pay a lot of income tax and have a lot of deductions for their various social benefits." Both women said despite the prices, they still planned to vote to stay in. The Trades Union Congress formally backed a vote to leave the EEC, though some key union figures backed Yes. And an Economist poll found 95 per cent of businesses favoured staying in. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The week before the vote, the Evening News reported how Peter Balfour, chairman of Scottish & Newcastle breweries, warned that leaving the Common Market would result in the loss of jobs for some of the company's employees in Edinburgh. Waverley Vintners, based in Holyrood Road and responsible for the group's wine and beer exports, would be worst hit, he said. William Reilly, chairman of the shop stewards' committee at S&N, branded the warning "a form of political blackmail". And Robin Cook, then Labour MP for Edinburgh Central, criticised employers for trying to influence the votes of workers. He cited one constituent who received a letter from her employer urging her to vote in favour of the EEC. "She was even invited to draw this advice to the attention of her family - the whole family would be voting according to the wishes of the boss. I am sure many workers will respond with some degree of sceptical indignation." Liberal David Steel in June 1975. He described Scottish anti-Marketeers as the "most narrow, inward-looking, xenophobic forces which Scotland could muster". | TSPL Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad David Steel, then Liberal chief whip, described Scotland's anti-Marketeers as the "most narrow, inward-looking, xenophobic forces which Scotland could muster". And he rejected claims that EEC membership would obstruct plans for devolution in Scotland and Wales. Malcolm Rifkind, Conservative MP for Edinburgh Pentlands, argued that if there was a Yes vote to stay in the EEC, Edinburgh should become the centre of administration for the European Regional Fund. In an open letter to constituents he said: "In our two years of membership there have already been major benefits in Edinburgh and the Lothian Region. More than £1,500,000 of grants and loans have been made available and the regional fund will ensure continuing benefits." But Leith Labour MP Ronald King Murray, who was the Lord Advocate, told a press conference he would be voting No because he was concerned about the loss of parliamentary power and because the principal aims of the founding treaty were economic rather than social or human. Newly-elected Conservative leader Margaret Thatcher with 'Keep Britain in Europe' campaigners the day before voting in the EEC P. Floyd/Daily Express/| Getty Images Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The Yes campaign in favour of staying in the EEC had a lead in the opinion polls throughout the campaign. The leaders of the three main parties all wanted a Yes vote - including Maragret Thatcher, who had taken over as Tory leader just a few months earlier. But Scotland was the part of the UK where seemed to be most chance of a No vote. The SNP argued for leaving, though its slogan opposed membership "on anyone else's terms" and at least some leading figures would have supported separate Scottish membership. There had been a big debate about whether there should be one national count in London of all the votes from across the UK. Some feared problems if it was clear that Scotland or Wales had reached a different conclusion from the rest of the country. Winnie Ewing and the SNP campaigned against Britain staying in the Common Market. | TSPL But in the end, the counts were held at county level in England and regional level in Scotland and all parts of the UK voted Yes, except for Shetland and the Western Isles. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad All the counts were held the next morning. The Lothian count took place at the Meadowbank sports centre and revealed a 59.5 per cent vote for staying in - 208,133 votes for Yes to 141,456 for No. That was slightly above the Scottish average Yes vote of 58.4 per cent, but well behind the Borders, the most enthusiastic Scottish region for Yes with 72.3 per cent. The Evening News carried the result of the referendum just hours after the counting of votes finished on 6 June 1975. | TSPL An academic study of the referendum published six months afterwards concluded that the Yes vote to stay in was "unequivocal but also unenthusiastic". "Support for membership was wide, but it did not run deep. The referendum was not a vote cast for new departures initiatives, it was a vote for the status quo." When parliament met after the referendum, an MP asked Harold Wilson for an assurance he would not repeat this 'constitutional experiment'. Wilson replied: 'I can certainly give the Right Honourable Member the assurance he seeks.' But 40 years later, another prime minister took a different view and got a very different result.
