A High Court judge has ruled that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland acted lawfully in prohibiting a planned Orange Order parade along the Garvaghy Road in Portadown. The decision, delivered on 28 October 2026, came after a two-day judicial review hearing.

The case centred on a parade notified by Portadown District Loyal Orange Lodge No 1 for 27 September 2026. The Parades Commission had issued a determination on 25 September permitting the parade with conditions, including a limit of 35 participants and a timeframe between 8 am and 9.30 am. However, the parade did not proceed after police advised that a large protest blocking the route made it unsafe.

Following the stand-off, the Chief Constable applied to the Secretary of State under section 9 of the Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 for a review of the determination. On 9 October, the Secretary of State confirmed the original determination but stated that it could no longer be given legal effect due to the passage of time and changed circumstances. He also made an order under section 11 of the Act prohibiting the procession.

Alan Hynes, a member of the Lodge, challenged both the Chief Constable's decision to seek a review and the Secretary of State's decisions. His legal team argued that the Secretary of State had no power to declare the determination expired, that the decision was irrational, and that it breached his rights under Articles 9, 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Mr Justice Scoffield dismissed the application. He held that the Chief Constable's decision to refer the matter was within his powers and was not vitiated by any irrelevant considerations. The judge noted that even if the Chief Constable had considered political factors improperly, they were not material to his decision, and the referral would inevitably have occurred given the policing situation.

On the Secretary of State's decision, the court found that it was lawful. While accepting that the Secretary of State's letter was “carelessly drafted” in parts, Mr Justice Scoffield ruled that the Secretary of State was entitled to form the view that the determination could no longer be given effect, and that his confirmation of the determination was not logically inconsistent with that view.

The judge also rejected the human rights challenge. He accepted that the Lodge members had a right to peaceful assembly and that the State had a positive obligation to facilitate the parade. However, he held that this obligation was not absolute and did not require the police to clear the route at all costs. The police assessment that any attempt to force the parade through would lead to serious disorder, injuries and wider community harm was entitled to significant deference.

Mr Justice Scoffield emphasised that the decision did not mean those who opposed the parade had won a victory. He noted the significant cost of the stand-off, including £5 million in policing costs, and stressed that the rule of law applies to all. He also pointed to the ongoing criminal investigation into unlawful protest and said that those who break the law must face consequences.

The applicant was granted leave to apply for judicial review on three grounds but the substantive application was dismissed on all grounds. Costs were not addressed in the judgment.