David Lavery

Mr Lavery provided a character reference to his cousin, William Lloyd-Lavery, in April following Mr Lloyd Lavery’s conviction for historical sexual offences. In which he referred to him as a Christian man and “a person of sound judgement and good character”.

Mr Lavery lost his post as human rights commissioner in August following an independent investigation, pursuant to the Code of Governance of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission (NIHRC), into his provision of the reference for Mr Lloyd Lavery.

The Society opened its own internal investigation but stated at the time of Mr Lavery’s removal from the NIHRC that due to the confidential nature of that process they would be making no further comment on the outcome.

However, there were calls for Mr Lavery’s resignation, not least from members of the Society themselves, and concerns with how the Society handled the matter also led to the resignation of two Council members and the calling of a Special General Meeting (SGM) that was due to take place on Wednesday.

In calling off the planned SGM the Society provided members with further details on the investigation into Mr Lavery wherein a disciplinary committee found him guilty of gross misconduct but imposed a sanction short of dismissal.

However, disclosures in that memorandum to members referred to Mr Lavery having committed “a number of breaches” of contractual and common law duties and that that those alleged breaches formed the basis of “a number of complaints”, including complaints of misconduct.

In a joint statement on behalf of JMK Solicitors and Granite Legal Services Limited solicitor Jonathan McKeown asks the Society whether:

• he disciplinary proceedings concerned only the provision of the character reference;
• the references to “a number of breaches” and “a number of complaints” relate merely to different legal characterisations of the same conduct; or
• the panel considered additional matters beyond the act of providing the reference.

Mr McKeown adds: “The distinction is important because it goes directly to understanding the basis upon which the disciplinary panel ultimately arrived at a finding of gross misconduct.

“The Society has repeatedly stated that it wishes to restore confidence through transparency and open engagement with members. Clarification of this issue would assist greatly in achieving that objective.”