A District Judge who dismissed a private security industry regulator’s prosecution against loyalist activist Jamie Bryson was wrong in law, the Court of Appeal has ruled.
Legal errors were made in reaching the conclusion that Mr Bryson had no case to answer on allegations of making a false statement during an investigation into door staff operating in the north Down area.
Lord Justice Treacy said the judge’s decision was “unsound as a matter of principle and based on an acceptance of an incorrect legal analysis”.
He ordered the case to be sent back to the Magistrates’ Court for rehearing before a different District Judge.
Mr Bryson has been locked in a legal battle with the Security Industry Authority (SIA) 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 his application for a direction that he had no case to answer based on doubts about the validity of the process.
As the SIA mounted a challenge to her determination, the Court of Appeal was asked to rule on the conclusions she reached.
Counsel for the Authority insisted there was a lawful and proper delegation in the case.
Mr Bryson, who represented himself in the appeal, argued that those powers only remained with the body corporate.
But Lord Justice Treacy, sitting with Lord Justice Horner, held that the District Judge had “erred in law” in her legal assessment.
“The chair did have authority to delegate the power on behalf of the Authority,” he said.
Lord Justice Treacy further confirmed: “We agree that the District Judge was incorrect to conclude that there was a doubt as to whether the delegation had effect in Northern Ireland.”
Following further submissions, he announced that the summons is to be reinstated.
“We have concluded that the appropriate course is to exercise our powers to remit the case for rehearing before a different District Judge,” he confirmed.
Reacting to the ruling, Mr Bryson vowed to “robustly” defend the private prosecution and indicated he may take the legal fight to the Supreme Court.
“The judgment of the court regarding the chair’s delegation departs from the legal authority of Lord Denning which has stood for 50 years,” he said.
“Really the Supreme Court needs to finally determine the matter, to avoid confusion if nothing else.”