Loyalist activist Jamie Bryson is attempting to take his legal battle to halt a prosecution by a private security industry regulator to the UK’s highest court.
Senior judges in Belfast ruled on Wednesday that a summons issued against him for allegedly making a false statement during an investigation into door staff operating in the north Down area was wrongly dismissed.
An order was made to have the case sent back for a rehearing at magistrates level.
But Mr Bryson has now lodged an application for leave to appeal that decision to the Supreme Court in London.
He claimed it would be prejudicial to allow the Security Industry Authority (SIA) to start again and “seek to remedy the holes in their case”.
The high-profile loyalist has been locked in a legal battle with the regulatory body for the last six years.
In 2018 the SIA issued a private summons against him over claims of providing false information to the authority.
A £450 invoice allegedly created by JJ Security Services Ltd, a company where Mr Bryson was a named director, formed part of the inquiries.
Previous courts heard it detailed five men being provided for six hours, at a rate of £15 per hour, at a bonfire event.
As part of the probe an SIA investigator wrote to Mr Bryson requesting information about the company.
In his reply the high-profile loyalist stated that JJ Security Services Ltd has never traded and he does not hold any relevant information.
Mr Bryson faced a charge of making a false statement to the authority.
Denying any wrongdoing, he argued that the SIA’s powers did not extend to Northern Ireland.
Central to his defence was a further contention that the chair of the body had no right under the Private Security Industry Act 2001 to delegate authority to investigators who examined his alleged activities.
In August last year Mr Bryson succeeded in having the summons dismissed at a preliminary stage focused on legal issues.
A District Judge granted direction that he had no case to answer based on doubts about the validity of the process.
However, the Court of Appeal ruled that decision was wrong in law.
Lord Justice Treacy, sitting with Lord Justice Horner, held that the chair did have authority to delegate the power on behalf of the SIA.
He ordered the case to be remitted for rehearing before a different District Judge.
Mr Bryson has now lodged papers setting out a number of questions which he claimed should be certified for consideration by the Supreme Court as raising points of law of general public importance.
In the application for leave to appeal, he contended that the source of the chair’s power to delegate is absent.
Mr Bryson also claimed that issues of a fair trial, protected by Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, were at stake.
“The remitting of the case to a third District Judge creates obvious prejudice in so far as the prosecutor can simply start again and seek to remedy the holes in their case and/or witnesses have benefitted from a ‘trial’ (pardon the pun) run and can tailor their answers accordingly in new proceedings,” he stated.
The SIA has been given seven days to respond before the Court of Appeal adjudicates on the merits of the application.