Section 3 of the Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) Act (Northern Ireland) 2023 reads as follows:

“3. In this Act, a protected person is a person attending a protected premises for the purpose of–

(a) accessing the treatment, information, advice or counselling there,

(b) accompanying a person described in paragraph (a), at the invitation of that person, or

(c) working in, or providing services to, the protected premises.”

In Director of Public Prosecutions v Johnston [2026] NIMag 1, Clive Johnstone, a former President of the Association of Baptist Churches in Ireland, held what he described as a “gospel outreach” in a Safe Access Zone [“SAZ”] around Causeway Hospital, Newbridge Road, Coleraine, on 7 July 2024 [1]. There was no dispute that he was within a Safe Access Zone as defined by the 2023 Act at the material time [5]. He liaised with the police in advance of the event and was warned that if the event was “conducted in the safe access zone, it will give rise to a reasonable suspicion that you have committed an offence.  Police will be required to take enforcement action” [9].

The police filmed the event. There were about nine people present, with the defendant singing and playing a ukulele and addressing the gathering through a PA system.  The defendant’s address was “of a religious nature”, and the police agreed that the term “abortion” was not used at all, “in accordance with a prior undertaking not to mention ‘abortion’ or to have any leaflets”.  Nor were there any placards [11]. In the end, however, the Inspector in charge warned the group that failure to leave the Safe Access Zone would be a breach of s.6 of the 2023 Act, and they might be prosecuted.  The others started to go, but Mr Johnston remained.  He was warned that if he did not leave the zone immediately, the police might remove him and that if he resisted, he might be prosecuted [12].

What is now s.5(2) of the 2023 Act had been the subject of a challenge in Reference by the Attorney General for Northern Ireland – Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) (Northern Ireland) Bill [2022] UKSC 32, in which the Attorney had argued that the provision was a disproportionate interference with the freedom of conscience, speech and assembly of anti-abortion protesters and demonstrators under Articles 9, 10 and 11 ECHR [37]. The Supreme Court had dismissed the challenge, Lord Reed concluding at [156] that

“The right of women in Northern Ireland to access abortion services has now been established in law through the processes of democracy.  That legal right should not be obstructed or impaired by the accommodation of claims by opponents of the legislation based, some might think ironically, on the liberal values protected by the Convention.  A legal system which enabled those who had lost the political debate to undermine the legislation permitting abortion, by relying on freedom of conscience, freedom of expression and freedom of assembly, would in practice align the law with the values of the opponents of reform and deprive women of the protection of rights which have been legislatively enacted.”

In his judgment, DJMC King said that Mr Johnston’s rights under Articles 9, 10 and 11 ECHR were “clearly engaged”, but no-one disputed that they were qualified rights [42]. He was bound by the Supreme Court’s decision, and the purpose of the hearing was

“ to determine if the ingredients of the offence under section 5 have been established to the necessary standard, the Supreme Court having decided that a conviction following that exercise would not be a disproportionate interference with a defendant’s Convention rights” [44].

He concluded that Mr Johnston had “deliberately placed himself within the SAZ on 7 July 2024 after prolonged prior contact with the police” and “was aware that he was at risk of breaching the provisions of that Act, but he did not divert from the course he had set” [61].

The defence had also raised a devolution issue: in brief, whether the Act breached the defendant’s rights under Articles 9, 10 and 11 ECHR, singly or together with Article 14 and was therefore outside the legislative competence of the Northern Ireland Assembly [71]. He concluded that this, in effect, invited “re-litigation of matters already determined by the Supreme Court” – which he refused to do [73]. He also refused to make a referral to the Court of Appeal [75].

Mr Johnston was guilty of both charges [76].