Northern Ireland's Court of Appeal has ruled that a magistrates' court has no jurisdiction to hear a prosecution under Article 10 of the Public Order (NI) Order 1987 unless the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland (DPPNI) has first given consent to prosecute. The ruling, delivered on 11 March 2026, was made in favour of David Stitt, who was charged following a Facebook post he published on 31 July 2024.

Stitt's post listed locations and times for public demonstrations on 3 August 2024 across Belfast, Newtownabbey, Carrickfergus, Larne, Bangor and surrounding areas. The post referred to Islam as "evil" and called for protests in response to what it described as a threat to the "Christian west". He was arrested on 22 August 2024 and charged with publishing written material that was threatening, abusive or insulting, with intent to stir up hatred or arouse fear, contrary to Article 10(1) of the Public Order (NI) Order 1987. Stitt does not dispute that he authored the post.

The case reached the Court of Appeal by way of a case stated from Belfast Magistrates' Court, which had initially rejected Stitt's argument that the absence of DPPNI consent removed the court's jurisdiction. The panel - comprising McCloskey LJ, Colton LJ and McLaughlin J, with McCloskey LJ delivering the judgment - divided the legal question into two parts.

On the first question, the court concluded that the magistrates' court does not have jurisdiction to hear and determine a prosecution under Article 10 of the 1987 Order in the absence of consent from the DPPNI. The court found that section 41(2) of the Justice (NI) Act 2002 transfers to the DPPNI the function of instituting such a prosecution, previously held by the relevant Attorney General under Article 25 of the 1987 Order. The court rejected the argument that the prosecution had been properly instituted by the DPPNI in this case.

On the second question, the court ruled that consent from the DPPNI does not in all cases need to be fully compliant with section 33 of the Justice (NI) Act 2002. The court noted that section 33 does not prescribe an exclusive model for providing consent, and that whether a given consent is lawful will depend on the specific facts of each case. However, the court emphasised that the section 33 model reflects the highest standards of decision-making, and that the DPPNI should aim to meet that standard in every case.

The appeal was determined in Stitt's favour on both questions. His prosecution for the public order offence remains the subject of ongoing proceedings, and the full judgment is available on the Judiciary NI website.