Public Prosecution Service (Appellant) v Stitt (Respondent)

Permission to Appeal application lodged

Case summary
Permission to Appeal
Previous proceedings

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2026/0079

Parties

Appellant(s)

Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland

Respondent(s)

David Stitt

Issue

In a summary prosecution for an offence under Article 10 of the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 to which the consent requirement of Article 25 thereof (as modified by section 41(2) of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002) applies, does the magistrates’ court have jurisdiction to hear and determine the prosecution in the absence of a consent to prosecute from the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland?

Facts

The respondent, Mr Stitt, was prosecuted in the magistrates’ court for the summary offence of publishing written material that was threatening, abusive or insulting under article 10 of the 1987 Order. At first instance, it was argued on his behalf that, by virtue of the statutory provisions in the 1987 Order and the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 mentioned above, the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland (“DPPNI”) to his prosecution was required and, no such consent having been provided, the court had no jurisdiction to hear the complaint. The District Judge rejected this contention, ruling that no consent was required. However, the District Judge’s decision was appealed by way of case stated to the His Majesty’s Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland (“NICA”). The NICA allowed the appeal in part, determining that where the proceedings are instituted by the Police Service, a consent to prosecute on the part of the DPPNI was required. After the NICA’s judgment was handed down, the PPS made an application asking the NICA to certify a question for the UK Supreme Court and to grant leave to appeal. By an order dated 8 May 2026, the NICA certified a question as raising a point of law of general public importance but refused leave to appeal to appeal to the Supreme Court. The PPS now seeks leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.