The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal against a High Court decision refusing leave to apply for judicial review of a Parades Commission determination allowing a loyalist procession to return along the Garvaghy Road in Portadown.

The appeal was brought by Breandán Mac Cionnaith, who challenged the Commission's decision of 25 September 2026 not to prohibit the return procession from proceeding along the Garvaghy Road. The procession had been notified by Portadown District Loyal Lodge No. 1.

The court emphasised that in judicial review proceedings its role is supervisory, not appellate. It does not decide the merits of the original decision, but only whether the decision was lawfully made. The court stated it was not determining whether the parade should proceed along the Garvaghy Road.

Under the Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Act 1998, the Parades Commission is empowered to impose conditions on public processions. It must consider factors including potential public disorder, disruption to community life, impact on community relations, and the desirability of permitting processions customarily held along a particular route.

The court noted that the Commission received extensive written and oral representations from the organiser, residents, political representatives, churches, and the Police Service of Northern Ireland. It considered opposition from the Garvaghy Road Residents' Coalition, including concerns about community impact, trauma, and fear. The organiser emphasised the importance of completing the traditional route and offered measures to minimise disruption. PSNI evidence indicated no information suggesting the parade would result in disorder or violence. The Commission imposed conditions restricting participant numbers, timing, banners, supporters, and bands, but did not prohibit the route. It concluded those conditions were the least restrictive means of preventing disorder and protecting rights.

The appellant advanced four grounds of appeal: incorrect legal test on public disorder, inadequacy of reasons, failure in proportionality balancing, and irrationality. The court rejected all four.

On the first ground, the court held the Commission had not applied an incorrect test. Reading the determination as a whole, the Commission assessed the possibility of disorder, gave significant weight to PSNI assessment, and imposed preventative conditions.

On the second, the determination contained adequate reasons. It was not required to explain how every concern would be removed. The court said the determination should not be read hyper critically, as it is written by non-lawyers and represents an evaluative judgment. It also noted that the Commission expressly stated each application is considered individually, and there is no legal requirement to explain consistency or inconsistency with previous decisions.

On proportionality, the court held the Commission properly conducted the assessment required under Articles 8 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It recognised the significance of the route to participants, considered the impact on residents, and reached an evaluative judgment after balancing all relevant considerations.

On irrationality, the court held the high threshold was not met. It found the Commission considered relevant evidence and competing interests and reached a reasoned decision within its statutory remit. The fact that people may disagree with the decision does not make it irrational.

The court concluded that the application for leave had no reasonable prospect of success, and even if leave were granted, the application would have failed on its merits. The appeal and application for leave were dismissed.