Loyalist Dee Stitt in bid to throw out religious hatred case

Lawyers who are representing the 54-year-old community worker claim there is no jurisdiction because a certificate of consent was not obtained from the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Judges sitting in the Court of Appeal in Belfast listed the challenge for full hearing next month.

Stitt, of Lord Warden’s Court in Bangor, Co Down, is currently awaiting trial over a social media posting which was made in the summer of last year.

Stitt denies a count of publishing threatening, abusive or insulting material with the intent to stir up hatred amid racial tensions which were present at the time.

The charge was brought under Article 10 of the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987.

Previous court sittings have heard a posting shared on Stitt’s Facebook page on July 31 stated “enough is enough… get up and stand up” in response to the killing of three young girls in Southport, close to Liverpool in England.

Listing parts of Belfast, Newtownabbey, and north Down where protests were scheduled to be held three days later, it stated that “the aim is to bring the country to a standstill”.

Advice was given for women and children to be at the front of demonstrations at all locations.

The message also referred to people having “one chance to stop the spread of evil Islam”.

Detectives investigating the published material arrested Stitt at Belfast City Airport on August 22.

He had just arrived back from a six-week stay in Alicante in south-eastern Spain, where the material was allegedly posted.

Police and prosecutors have described the publication as a “call to arms”, claiming the intention was to incite fear or hatred of a group of people defined by religious belief.

During interviews Stitt told police that it was made on a private Facebook account which he thought could only be seen by around 700 friends.

He insisted it was a reshare of a message sent to him about staging peaceful protests, and based on content written by someone else.

Stitt’s legal team are now attempting to have the case halted before the trial hearing.

Under the 1987 Order a certificate of consent should have been obtained from the Director or Deputy Director of Prosecutions, they contend.

The failure to honour those requirements was described as being “fatal” for the prosecution against the defendant.

Papers submitted ahead of the appeal hearing contend: “This court should hold that there is no jurisdiction to try Mr Stitt.”