High Court quashes Executive Decision to proceed with A5 upgrade

Some seven months ago a legal challenge was lodged against the Executive decision to proceed with the A5 upgrade by legal representatives of the Alternative A5 Alliance (AA5A). The move provoked considerable anger at the time, as the AA5A’s long-standing argument that the existing road could be upgraded had been refuted by the public enquiry as cited in the ministerial statement last October approving the upgrade…

“The 2023 public inquiry examined in detail schemes put forward as alternatives to the A5 dualling, including those put forward by the main group of objectors to the scheme. The PAC has concluded that all those alternatives presented would unacceptably compromise the scheme objectives and/or provide an inadequate response to the needs of the Western Transport Corridor.”

This meant that the only viable option for the A5 is the construction of a new dual carriageway road. Many believe the road is a necessity given the poor infrastructure in the west, not to mention the cost in lives the existing road has exacted. The ‘Enough is Enough’ group has been advocating for the new road due to the number of deaths that have occurred on the road since the scheme was first announced in 2007, which now stands at 57.

However, the judgment on the challenge to the road was rendered today by Justice McAlinden, who quashed the decision by the Executive on the basis that it does not comply with climate change targets set by Stormont. This marks the third time the decision to proceed with the road has been overturned in court.

According to the BBC, the Judge said that…

“…this decision will bring “significant, fresh anguish to the doors of those who have been injured and maimed and those who have lost loved ones” on the A5 road. “It is likely that delays in the progression of this scheme will coincide with the occurrence of further loss of life and serious injury on the existing road,” the judge says. But he adds that “the decision to proceed with the scheme must be taken in accordance with the law”. “The principle of the rule of law cannot be subverted, even if the motivation for doing so is to achieve what is deemed to constitute a clear societal benefit.”

There are several questions to be answered now.

Most pertinently, given that the Alternative A5 Alliance has resorted to the courts on multiple occasions to challenge the scheme, how was approval given to proceed last October without that approval being legally bulletproof?

Secondly, what steps will Infrastructure Minister Liz Kimmins (who has said that the result is an ‘extremely disappointing day’) and the Executive now take to proceed? The BBC offers a glimmer of hope for proponents of the upgrade, quoting Justice McAlinden…

“the shortcomings and shortcuts” highlighted in his judgment are “capable of being remedied”. “The relevant ministers, departments and officials should redouble their efforts to deal with these shortcomings and that may involve the finalisation of a Climate Action Plan which is long overdue,” he says.The judge adds that “concerted efforts” must be made to do this so that “a new and safer A5 dual carriageway” can be built and and “the long list of names of those who have perished on that road will not be added to”.

Slugger Team

Our mod team uses this account to share news and posts. Content here should not be interpreted as Slugger’s editorial position. Slugger welcomes all views and does not take editorial positions on issues.