Jamie Bryson: I argued in court that police knew of our loyalist parades, but this defence was rejected

The Public Prosecution Service (PPS) has seemingly developed a new defence in law.
Jamie Bryson: "The PPS refused to accept the defence of loyalist flag protestors like me or, in my view, give it adequate consideration.  Accordingly I and hundreds of others received criminal convictions"Jamie Bryson: "The PPS refused to accept the defence of loyalist flag protestors like me or, in my view, give it adequate consideration.  Accordingly I and hundreds of others received criminal convictions"
Jamie Bryson: "The PPS refused to accept the defence of loyalist flag protestors like me or, in my view, give it adequate consideration. Accordingly I and hundreds of others received criminal convictions"

It is, in this instance, that as the PSNI had advance knowledge of the Bobby Storey funeral, that provides a reasonable excuse for not prosecuting

This is exactly the defence loyalist flag protestors like me tried to use against prosecution for the parades at that time, which were also facilitated by the PSNI.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

However the PPS refused to accept this as a defence and prosecuted quite a few flag protestors anyway.

I believe this is yet more evidence of double standards as to how the law is applied to republicans vis-a-vis loyalists by the PSNI and PPS.

My defence in court was the fact that the PSNI had facilitated the public processions, and had engaged with me in relation to the proposed route of same, and yet subsequently then sought to prosecute me for the very same processions.

The PPS refused to accept this defence or, in my view, give it adequate consideration.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Accordingly I and hundreds of others received criminal convictions.

It now seems that when it comes to the republican movement, the PPS is amenable to this defence and indeed made it a determinative factor in the decision not to prosecute members of Sinn Fein.

The PPS have further upended a settled tenet of the criminal law, namely that ignorance is no defence.

They have opened the door and I’d expect those convicted during flag protests will now consider seeking to have those cases reopened on the basis that the PPS rejected a defence which they now accept as a valid consideration within the test for prosecution.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Moreover, it seems the PPS have effectively adopted an Article 7 ECHR quality of law point as a factor weighing against prosecution, in terms of the regulations being too vague, but haven’t definitively said this.

Nevertheless that is the import of their findings and as such I’d imagine the floodgates will now open with challenges brought by all those fined or prosecuted under the Covid regulations.

Indeed, why should regulations that are too vague or ambiguous to reach the threshold of a criminal conviction be used to prosecute or fine anyone following the PPS findings in the Storey funeral investigation?

Related topics: