By 
A HIGH Court judge has accused two Stormont departments of ‘gaslighting’ him in relation to the potential climate change impacts of the A5 dual carriageway, if the £1.7 million project is given the go-ahead.
Mr Justice McAlinden said he made the assertion with the ‘utmost conviction’.
‘Gaslighting’ is a form of psychological manipulation where someone makes you question your own reality, memory, or perceptions. Last year, the senior judge quashed approval for the A5 dual carriageway on climate change and human rights grounds.
His decision was then appealed by the Department for Infrastructure (DfI). But Lady Chief Justice, Siobhan Keegan, referred aspects of the evidence given in relation to climate change and what impact the new road would have on the Climate Action Plan back to the High Court.
Put forward
In his latest judgement, Mr Justice McAlinden said that the case which was now put forward by the DfI and the Department for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (DAERA) was ‘materially different from and inconsistent with’ the case previously made by them.
“What is worse from my perspective, is that the DfI and DAERA, in adopting this course of action are putting forward the proposition that the case that they are now making was always the case that was being made by the DfI, and that it was my wholesale misunderstanding of the case that was actually being made by the DfI before me first time round. And my failure to take steps to properly acquaint myself with the detail of that case which led to the erroneous first instance decision which is now being appealed,” Mr Justice McAlinden said.
“I state with the utmost conviction that I regard this approach as nothing less than ‘gaslighting’. I know the case that the DfI made before me during the first hearing, and I carefully and comprehensively analysed that case. The case that is now being made is not the case that was presented before me.”
Advanced
Mr Justice McAlinden stated that he was ‘100 per-cent right’ in concluding that the case now being advanced by DfI, and supported by DAERA, is that ‘specific project-level emissions have never, do not, and will not – and indeed cannot – be considered when preparing greenhouse gas (GHG) inventories or projecting future emissions’.
“I do not consider that it is my task to determine whether this new case holds water, although I have pointed out a number of examples where I suspect it is far from watertight.”
The judgement will now be referred back to the Court of Appeal as their deliberations on the issues continue.
