Security licencing court case against Jamie Bryson which has just fallen apart 'cost public £250,000' says 33-year-old loyalist, who defeated government agency while serving as his own lawyer
A legal case against loyalist activist Jamie Bryson spanning several years finally collapsed today at a crunch court hearing – with the 33-year-old north Down man estimating that the failed prosecution had cost the public £250,000.
It was the final stage in a long and winding saga which saw Mr Bryson – who represented himself instead of using a lawyer – do battle against the Security Industry Authority (SIA), the government regulator of private security workers.
Granting Mr Bryson’s application for a ‘not guilty’ direction at Downpatrick Magistrates’ Court yesterday, District Judge Amanda Brady outlined how she had doubts about multiple aspects of the prosecution case, which centred on the licensing of security staff.
She said the court had doubts about the legal powers the SIA claimed to be exercising, and whether the offences as charged were properly made out.
“There can be no more evidence called by the prosecution, who have closed their case for the second time, and the court reminds itself that the defendant does not have to prove anything,” said the judge, concluding that “the court finds that there is no longer a reasonable prospect that a reasonable jury, properly directed, could convict”.
Mr Bryson declared the judgement “a humiliation” for the SIA.
The prosecution centred on a private security firm called JJ Security Services, based in Donaghadee (which has since been dissolved). Mr Bryson was a director from 2017 to 2019.
Mr Bryson had been charged with making a false statement to the SIA and recklessly making a false statement to the SIA that “JJ Security Services Limited has never traded”.
The court had heard that the SIA wrote to Mr Bryson in September 2017 requesting information about JJ Security Services Ltd as part of an investigation into door staff operating in the north Down area.
In his reply, Mr Bryson stated that JJ Security Services Ltd has never traded and he does not hold any relevant information.
The SIA made the case that, according to a £450 invoice for "SIA-licensed event supervisors" at a bonfire festival in Bangor in 2017, a document created by JJ Security Services, five men had been supplied for six hours at a rate of £15 per hour each.
In a case which has been visited upon almost every level of court in the land, from the Petty Sessions to the Court of Appeal, Mr Bryson has lodged repeated legal arguments seeking to undermine the validity of the case against him.
In his latest application for a ‘not guilty’ direction, arguing that any notional jury “properly directed could not safely convict” even taking the prosecuting evidence at its height.
He argued that SIA powers did not extend to Northern Ireland, and also that the SIA chair did not have the power to delegate authority to the people investigating him.
The judge brought the legal saga to an end today, saying “the defendant has created a doubt in the mind of the court” concerning almost every aspect of the case against him.
"A serious amount of time and effort have been spent on progressing this case by the prosecution, the defence, and by the court,” she said.
"But the stage has now been reached where the right thing to do is to stop this case and the application for a direction of no case to answer is granted.”
Mr Bryson, 33, who is now set to argue that the SIA are liable for his legal costs, said it was “a monumental embarrassment for the SIA”.
He noted that he had been arrested in August 2018, had his home raided and property seized, and was held for seven hours in a joint SIA-PSNI operation.
As the case developed, “the PSNI wisely reversed themselves out of what had transpired to be a farce and took no further involvement [but] rather than accepting the monumental errors made, the SIA decided to plough on ahead and bring a 'private prosecution'.
“The total cost to the taxpayer of this saga is over £250,000 (inclusive of two Judicial Reviews), with the SIA having senior counsel, junior counsel, solicitors and their own in-house Head of Legal; I acted alone.”
He also said that “the validity of all prosecutions in relation to such matters brought by the SIA since 2009 are now questionable,” based on the arguments he advanced in court.
"They deserve all they get, and I, for one, am not finished with them,” he said.
"The next phase is focusing on who made the decisions, on what basis and who authorised them.
“The SIA, and all the relevant characters, will be forced to justify every single action, and every single penny of tax-payers money spent.”