Ex-DUP councillor John Carson apologises for remarks towards Sinn Fein's Michelle O'Neill

Michelle O’Neill’s political abilities were attacked and ridiculed by a former Democratic Unionist Party councillor saying she would be “put back in her kennel”, she told the High Court today. The Sinn Fein vice president described John Carson’s comments as a misogynistic attempt to belittle her as a woman who would be “subservient” to his own party’s prospective new leader. Ms O’Neill has already won her libel action over the ex-Alderman’s posting on social media.

At a further hearing today to determine the level of damages, it was confirmed that Mr Carson has now issued a full apology. His barrister also disclosed that he is no longer a member of the DUP following the act of “political suicide”. The comments appeared on Facebook in April 2021 as he backed Edwin Poots’ candidacy at the time for leadership of the unionist party. In response to a photograph of the then Deputy First Minister Ms O’Neill, Mr Carson wrote: “She will be put back in her kennel.” He initially apologised online, but was suspended for three months by a local government standards watchdog who held the remarks were unreasonable and misogynistic. Ms O’Neill obtained judgment by default last December when no defence was entered to her defamation action. The Sinn Fein deputy leader attended court today to give evidence about the posting and its impact on her. “I thought it was malicious, absolutely misogynistic and an attack on me as a professional and a woman,” she said. Ms O’Neill told the court the comments went beyond the cut and thrust of political debate by questioning her competence. Questioned by her barrister Peter Girvan, she said: “It was an attempt to ridicule me, absolutely, advancing the case for the person he was advocating (for leader of the DUP).” She described Mr Carson’s initial apology as “half-baked”, adding that emojis posted in reaction to his comments fuelled her feelings of anger and offence. “I felt it was an attempt to belittle and ridicule me,” she added. Mr Carson, who served on Mid and East Antrim Borough Council, also attended the hearing but did not give any oral evidence on medical grounds. His barrister, Michael Bready, asked Ms O’Neill if she would accept it was a clumsy phrase not deliberately directed at her. “No, I’m not,” she replied. Counsel argued there had been no political benefit for his client. “He was a member of the party for 42 years and a councillor 18; now he’s neither,” Mr Bready said. “It was the opposite of political gain, it was political suicide.” But Ms O’Neill claimed: “That’s the result of hindsight, that was not his intention when he made the comment.” Referring to his newly issued, unreserved apology for any hurt, distress, embarrassment or reputational damage caused, she told the court: “That’s two and a half years later, it speaks volumes in terms of… sincerity.” At one point the judge put to her that she is a politician of national and international standing on first name terms with presidents and prime ministers. With Mr Carson relatively unknown by comparison, Master Bell questioned the reputational damage his comments could have caused in the political circles she moves in. “He’s been an idiot, misogynistic, nasty and he’s lost his job as a result of it quite rightly,” the judge pointed out. “If he gets thrown out of the party and told to withdraw his name before he’s pushed, is that not a better mechanism for societal change?” However, Ms O’Neill responded: “(He was saying) a potential leader he favoured was going to come in and put me on a lead, that I would be subservient to him (because) that’s the kind of politician I am. “That’s the damage in what he said.” During the hearing her lawyers also challenged assertions on behalf of Mr Carson that he lacks the financial means to pay any significant award of damages. Referring to the former DUP representative’s bank statements, Mr Girvan claimed an “incredible amount” of payments had been made to Amazon, along with cash withdrawals well in excess of his monthly pension income. “The defendant has been dissipating assets… when he knows there’s a judgment against him,” the barrister alleged. Reserving his decision on damages, Master Bell pledged to give a ruling as soon as possible.

Want a quick and expert briefing on the biggest news stories? Listen to our latest podcasts to find out What You Need To Know.