Two judges reject application by Ciaran McClean to bring judicial review of the legality of controversial parliamentary deal

This article is more than 2 years old

This article is more than 2 years old

A crowdfunded bid at the high court in London to challenge the government’s controversial parliamentary deal with the Democratic Unionist party has failed.



Two judges rejected an application made on Thursday by Ciaran McClean, an unsuccessful Westminster candidate for the Green party in Northern Ireland in the general election, to bring a judicial review of the legality of the £1bn deal.

The claim alleged the deal breached the landmark 1998 Good Friday agreement and the Bribery Act.

McClean, who raised tens of thousands of pounds for the legal action via crowdfunding, accused the government of “buying DUP votes” to hold on to power.

He was in court to hear Lord Justice Sales, sitting with Mr Justice Lewis, rule against him. Sales said neither of the two grounds relied on by McClean in his application was “properly arguable in a court of law”. He said: “Permission to apply for judicial review should be refused.”

McClean, who pursued the legal action as a private individual and not in conjunction with the Green party, claimed the agreement breached the Bribery Act 2010 and described it as a “corrupt bargain”.

During the hearing, his lawyer tried to persuade the two judges that he had an “arguable” case, which should be given a full airing in court at a later date.

Dominic Chambers QC told them that, under the 26 June agreement, the government had “purchased” the political support of the DUP for £1bn, “and that sum will come from public money”.

He argued the agreement was made for an “unlawful purpose” and said that it was “on its face unlawful because it makes provision for the expenditure of public funds for party political advantage”.

The application was contested by two defendants, the first secretary of state and the attorney general.

Their QC, James Eadie, submitted in written argument before the judges that the criminal law of bribery “plainly does not apply to a confidence and supply agreement between political parties”.

He stated: “The allegation that the agreement entails public expenditure which is unlawful at common law and/or without parliamentary authority is misconceived in particular because the expenditure contemplated by the agreement will have appropriate parliamentary authorisation.”

The parliamentary deal – branded “shabby and reckless” by Labour – saw the DUP’s 10 MPs agree to support the Conservatives’ minority government in a series of key Westminster votes. In exchange, Northern Ireland’s largest party secured £1bn of new Treasury investment in the region.

Under the “confidence and supply” arrangement intended to last until 2022, the DUP guaranteed that its MPs would vote with the government on the Queen’s speech, the budget and legislation relating to Brexit and national security.

The DUP has insisted the Westminster arrangement will provide stability for the UK at a time of uncertainty while offering much-needed investment for the whole of Northern Ireland.

A government spokeswoman said: “We believe the claim is groundless and the court has agreed with that view. The government is very clear that making funding available under the agreement is lawful and is for the benefit of all parts of the community in Northern Ireland.”