Gerry Kelly Taking Legal Action Against PSNI

Gerry Kelly is to take legal action against the Chief Constable of the PSNI.

Mr Kelly, who is a Sinn Féin MLA and Policing Board Member, is taking the action following an incident in June 2013 when he was carried on the bonnet of a police Land Rover during a disturbance in the Carrick Hill area of Belfast.

After the incident, both Kelly and the driver of the vehicle received and accepted warnings.

However, on Monday Sinn Féin said: "Gerry Kelly has taken a civil case against the PSNI Chief Constable over the incident in Carrick Hill last year.

"Gerry Kelly, in common with any other citizen, is entitled to access the courts when he believes he has been wronged."

The PSNI has said it will not be commenting on the issue, but Mr Kelly's decision has been criticised by a number of Northern Ireland's politicians.

DUP North Belfast MP Nigel Dodds said: "This is one of the most petty and small-minded actions ever witnessed from Sinn Féin. Gerry Kelly is a member of the Policing Board yet sees fit to waste further police time and resources with this civil case.

"Republicans have given support to the police but yet some members of Sinn Féin engage in posturing in an attempt to distract the most discontented elements.

"That can be the only explanation for this latest stunt, unless of course it is just a blatant attempt to perpetuate community tensions."

While Tom Elliott, Ulster Unionist Justice spokesperson, added: "The level to which Mr Kelly will stoop knows no bounds.

"I trust the courts will realise the nonsense of this action and that Mr Kelly will not be facilitated with Legal Aid and any application for compensation will be rejected."

In a statement, the Police Federation for Northern Ireland (PFNI) which represents rank and file officers, said the move was one of "sheer hypocrisy".

PFNI Chairman Terry Spence QPM said: "This claim is risible and shows the extent to which the claims' culture has taken root. Mr Kelly has accepted an 'informed warning' for his actions and therefore has no grounds for compensation.

"This is sheer hypocrisy, and it won't go unnoticed that it was Mr Kelly's party that questioned the payment of compensation to officers who'd suffered the life-long disability of hearing loss in the past."

He continued: "Mr Kelly should reconsider his decision. He's entitled to make a claim, but not to bring the system into disrepute. If he doesn't withdraw the claim, the hope is that it will be treated with the contempt it deserves."

(JP/CD)