Britain's Lord Chancellor was accused yesterday of backing the unionist viewpoint over a royalty declaration which barristers in Northern Ireland have to make before they can become Queen's Counsel.
Mr Michael Lavery QC said in the High Court in Belfast: "This was a conflict between unionist views and nationalist views in which the Lord Chancellor came down firmly in favour of the unionists."
Two nationalist barristers, Mr Seamus Treacy and Mr Barry Macdonald, are challenging the validity of the declaration "to well and truly serve Queen Elizabeth II".
Their refusal to make the declaration on the ground that it is discriminatory has prevented them becoming QCs.
Mr Lavery said the Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine of Lairg, had accepted what the Lord Chief Justice, Sir Robert Carswell, had told him in a letter, that the move to get rid of the declaration was part of a politically-based campaign to have the title of Senior Counsel adopted instead of Queen's Counsel.
"This was seen as a further weakening of the link between the Crown and Northern Ireland and a further erosion of the unionist position," said Mr Lavery.
He said the appointment of QCs was formerly a matter for the Secretary of State. But when it became a "hot political issue" following another barrister's judicial review case in 1995, the matter of appointments passed to the Lord Chancellor.
"This change was effected without making full disclosure to the Secretary of State, and that gives a significant signal as to what was happening," said Mr Lavery.
"The opposition to what was perceived as a political campaign was being advanced for the reasons of maintaining Northern Ireland's link with the Crown and resisting nationalist encroachment.
"The Lord Chancellor is perfectly entitled to these views but is not entitled to use his office to further them."
Mr Lavery said an extraordinary feature of the case was the cavalier way in which the Lord Chief Justice rejected the report of the Bar Council, which had recommended an alternative declaration omitting any reference to the queen.
He said it was clear the Lord Chief Justice had already decided to retain the declaration, similar to the one used in England, and that the Lord Chancellor was persuaded, if he needed persuading, of the necessity to maintain the declaration in the face of an alleged political campaign to have it removed.
"The implication is they would keep the matter on the back burner for as long as they could," said Mr Lavery.
The hearing continues today.