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Department of Agriculture staff were also withdrawn from the port on February 1 2021 amid security concerns.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
Scottish Sun
4 hours ago
- Scottish Sun
Rod Stewart fires veiled rebuke to pro-Palestine acts Kneecap and Bob Vylan as he makes return to Glastonbury
Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) ROD Stewart fired a veiled rebuke to pro-Palestine acts Kneecap and Bob Vylan as he made a sensational return to Glastonbury today. The 80-year-old appeared on the Pyramid Stage a day after a day of shame on Saturday for the massive three day festival. Sign up for the Entertainment newsletter Sign up 4 Rod Stewart on the Glastonbury Pyramid Stage 4 Rod said music 'brings people together' 4 Kneecap on stage on Saturday 4 Bob Vylan waves Palestine flag Credit: Shutterstock Editorial Punk rap duo Bob Vylan led the crowd in a chant of 'death to the IDF', referencing the Israeli Defence Force, which was broadcast live on the BBC. And Kneecap fans jeered Rod Stewart's name after they namechecked him, called him 'Rod the Prod' and mocked 'He's older than Israel.' Asked if their fans were going to see Rod's show, the question was met by boos, which may have been a reaction to Rod saying he's is a big fan of Nigel Farage and the Reform Party. But the Celtic-daft crooner emerged to huge cheers for his Legends spot to pipers playing 'Scotland the Brave'. He told the fans: " I'm here, enjoy yourselves ladies and gentlemen please." In an apparent jibe towards the divisive performances of Saturday, he said: "Music brings us together, we need music. "There's been a lot about the Middle East lately, quite rightly so, but I want to draw your attention to the Ukraine with the next song, called The Love Train." He kicked off his set with his hit Tonight I'm Yours before singing other hits like The First Cut is the Deepest. Asked where Britain's political future now lay, he told The Times earlier this week: 'It's hard for me because I'm extremely wealthy, and I deserve to be, so a lot of it doesn't really touch me. 'But that doesn't mean I'm out of touch. For instance, I've read about Starmer cutting off the fishing in Scotland and giving it back to the EU. That hasn't made him popular. Lord of the Rings star breaks down in tears after making surprise appearance on stage at Glastonbury 'We're fed up with the Tories. We've got to give Farage a chance. He's coming across well. What options have we got? I know some of his family, I know his brother, and I quite like him.' Asked what Mr Farage stands for aside from Brexit, tighter immigration and controversial economic promises he replied: 'Yeah, yeah. But Starmer's all about getting us out of Brexit and I don't know how he's going to do that. 'Still, the country will survive. It could be worse. We could be in the Gaza Strip.' Meanwhile, Kneecap will not be prosecuted by terror cops over their "kill your MP" remarks. The Irish band - who the BBC refused to broadcast live at Glastonbury yesterday - were subject of a terror probe by the Met Police unrelated to their appearance at the festival. It concerned a video from a November 2023 gig which emerged last month and saw one band member calling for the death of British politicians. He could be heard in the footage saying: 'The only good Tory is a dead Tory. Kill your local MP.' The trio - which includes Liam Og O hAnnaidh, Naoise O Caireallain and JJ O Dochartaigh - responded with a grovelling statement, including to the families of murdered MPs Sir David Amess and Jo Cox, insisting they would not incite violence against any individual. However, Avon & Somerset Police is carrying out its own investigation into comments made by Kneecap and rap duo Bob Vylan on Glastonbury's West Holts Stage on Saturday. Ó Caireallain called on the crowd to "riot" outside Westminster magistrates in August when bandmate O hAnnaidh returns to court in August on another terror charge. Kneecap started their performance yesterday afternoon by chanting "f*** Keir Starmer". They also spoke out in support of Palestine Action and prior to appearing on stage, the band put a post onto their social media accounts showing a photo of O Dochartaigh in a 'We Are All Palestine Action' t-shirt. The anti-Israel activist group could soon be banned in the UK. Meanwhile, a statement said Glastonbury chiefs are 'appalled' after music double act Bob Vylan led the crowd in "death to the IDF" chants during their performance. IDF stands for Israel Defence Forces, the national military of the State of Israel, which is currently involved with the war in Gaza, one of two remaining Palestinian territories. It comes after Israeli politicians blasted the BBC and Glastonbury for failing to cut off the performance during the live broadcast of the festival. The singer from the pro-Palestine punk act, who keeps his identity secret, also shouted "from the river to the sea Palestine... will be free" - regarded by Jews as a call for Israel's elimination. Bob Vylan - which consists of singer Bobby Vylan and guitarist Bobbie Vylan - then shared a post on X of the former eating an ice-cream with the caption: "While Zionists are crying on socials, I've just had a late night (vegan) ice cream." The BBC later took down the broadcast on the iPlayer but has been criticised for not cutting it off immediately after the anti-Semitic chanting, with the live feed continuing for another 40 minutes. O hAnnaidh was charged under the Terrorism Act last month after allegedly displaying a flag in support of proscribed terrorist group Hezbollah while saying "up Hamas, up Hezbollah" during a gig in Kentish Town, north London, in November.
NBC News
10 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
14 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.
