Northern Ireland's Court of Appeal has ruled that a magistrates' court has no jurisdiction to hear a public order prosecution unless the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland (DPPNI) has first consented to bring the case. The decision, delivered on 11 March 2026, was made in favour of David Stitt, who was charged with publishing threatening, abusive or insulting material under Article 10 of the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987.

Stitt was arrested on 22 August 2024 in connection with a post he published on Facebook on 31 July 2024. The post listed locations across Belfast and surrounding areas for anti-Islamic protests planned for 3 August 2024, and included text referring to what it called the spread of "evil islam". He was charged the same day with distributing written material intended to stir up hatred or arouse fear. The charge was later amended at Belfast Magistrates' Court to substitute "published" for "distributed".

Stitt's legal team argued at first instance that the prosecution required the prior consent of the DPPNI under Article 25 of the 1987 Order, and that without it the court lacked jurisdiction. The magistrates' court rejected that argument but agreed to state a case for the Court of Appeal, posing two questions of law.

The Court of Appeal, comprising Lady Chief Justice Keegan, Lord Justice Treacy and Lord Justice Colton - who delivered the judgment - answered both questions. On the first, the court found that the magistrates' court does not have jurisdiction to hear and determine such a prosecution in the absence of DPPNI consent. The court held that section 41(2) of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 transfers to the DPPNI the function of instituting prosecutions for offences under Part III of the 1987 Order, a function previously held by the relevant Attorney General. It rejected the argument that the prosecution had been instituted by the DPPNI.

On the second question, the court found that the required consent does not need to comply fully with the procedure set out in section 33 of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 in every case. The court described the issue as finely balanced, but concluded that section 33 does not prescribe the only lawful method of providing consent to prosecution. It noted that what constitutes a valid consent will depend on the facts of each individual case.

While ruling that strict section 33 compliance is not always mandatory, the court stressed that the section 33 model represents the highest standards of decision-making, and that the DPPNI should aspire to meet that standard in every case.

The appeal was determined in favour of Stitt. Stitt denies the offence alleged against him.