AN RUC officer who is a member "of the Orange Order and Apprentice Boys lost a legal challenge yesterday to the RUC's right to punish him for marching in public with both organisations.
Constable William Stewart (34) was stationed in Derry in 1989 "when he marched through the city in the July 12th Orange parade and the following December during the annual "Shutting the Gates" ceremony organised by the Apprentice Boys.
He was found guilty of breaching the RUC's disciplinary code which requires members to abstain from any activity which could give the impression that it Alright interfere with the impartial discharge of their duties.
Const Stewart was fined £50 for each of the marching offences and was also reprimanded for taking part in an Apprentice Boys parade in Limavady when he set light to an effigy of Lundy, regarded by loyalists as a traitor during the Siege of Derry.
In the High Court in Belfast yesterday Lord Justice Carswell dismissed Const Stewart's application for a judicial review of the Secretary of State's dismissal of his appeals against findings of guilt on disciplinary charges.
During the hearing last March it was emphasised that police officers are not banned from membership of the Orange Order or the Apprentice Boys.
But in his reserved judgment yesterday, Lord Justice Carswell said police regulations made it clear that officers must accept certain restrictions on their private lives in order to maintain their reputation for even handedness.
He said that in a society as deeply divided as Northern Ireland, it was particularly important that officers should not act in a way which might be thought by the public to impair their impartiality towards all sections of the community.
Lord Justice Carswell said it was not suggested that Const Stewart was anything less than properly impartial, but the police needed to retain public trust.
In order to do so, it might be necessary for them to refrain from perfectly lawful activities in which other citizens were free to engage.
The Secretary of State's lawyer applied for costs but the application was opposed by Const Stewart's lawyer.
He said the ease had raised difficult questions involving human rights and the judgment had established future guidelines for the police. Const Stewart had brought the case himself and had not been supported by any trade union organisation.
Const Stewart said he wished to consider the judgment before commenting.