A court ruled yesterday that the fact Norman Lowell, who has been found guilty of inciting racial hatred, was not assisted by a lawyer when he was interrogated by the police did not violate his fundamental human rights.

Mr Justice Anthony Ellul, sitting in the First Hall of the Civil Court in its constitutional jurisdiction, made the ruling after hearing a constitutional reference by the Court of Criminal Appeal that is hearing Mr Lowell’s appeal from his conviction by the Magistrates’ Court.

The court heard that on May 27, 2006 Mr Lowell was charged with having incited racial hatred in two meetings. He was also charged with having committed the same offence by means of an article he had written entitled Coming Cataclysmic Crisis. The Magistrates’ Court had found Mr Lowell guilty of all charges in March 2008 and had handed down a two-year jail term suspended for four years and also fined him €500.

Mr Lowell claimed he had not been assisted by a lawyer during his interrogation by the police and this was in violation of his human rights. The Court of Criminal Appeal referred this claim to the First Hall of the Civil Court for a ruling.

Mr Justice Ellul heard that Mr Lowell had given two statements to the police. He had not been assisted by a lawyer because, in 2006, the law did not provide for such a right.

Mr Lowell had refused to sign his statements and the court concluded that the Magistrates’ Court finding of guilt had in no manner been based upon the statements made without legal assistance.

When Mr Lowell was arraigned, his lawyer had sent a notice to The Times’ newsroom stating that “Mr Lowell was interrogated in the most civilised of ways and a statement was drawn up by the executive police, which Mr Lowell refused to sign”.

Mr Justice Ellul pointed out that Mr Lowell’s two statements had had no impact upon the Magistrates’ Court’s finding of his guilt. It had based its decisions on the transcripts of what Mr Lowell had said in his meetings and on the contents of his article. That court had concluded that a person of ordinary understanding would find the words offensive and tantamount to racial abuse and hatred.