The Security Industry Authority's Application
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | McCloskey LJ |
| Judgment Date | 17 November 2021 |
| Neutral Citation | [2021] NIQB 106 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Northern Ireland) |
| Date | 17 November 2021 |
1
Neutral Citation No: [2021] NIQB 106
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down
(subject to editorial corrections)*
Ref: McC11653
ICOS No:
Delivered: 17/11/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
_________
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
(JUDICIAL REVIEW)
BEFORE A DIVISIONAL COURT
_________
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY THE SECURITY INDUSTRY
AUTHORITY FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
________
Before: Keegan LCJ, McCloskey LJ and Maguire LJ
_________
Appearances:
Applicant: Mr Tony McGleenan QC and Mr Andrew Brownlie, of counsel, instructed by
Walker McDonald Solicitors
Respondent: Unrepresented
Police Service of NI: Mr Philip Henry, of counsel, instructed by the Crown Solicitor
Interested party: Mr Jamie Bryson, self-representing
_________
McCLOSKEY LJ (delivering the judgment of the court)
Introduction
[1] By order of a single judge of this court made ex parte in chambers dated
24 August 2021 the Security Industry Authority (“SIA”) was granted leave to apply
for judicial review. The target of its challenge is described in the following terms:
“A decision of the District Judge sitting in Newtownards
Magistrates’ Court on 24 May 2021 whereby he ordered [SIA]
to disclose to Mr Bryson the materials grounding a production
2
order obtained by the Police Service of Northern Ireland at
Belfast Crown Court on 17 October 2018.”
We shall describe the author of the impugned decision as “the judge.” The central
question in these proceedings is whether the judge was legally empowered to make
the impugned order.
The Underlying Proceedings
[2] The impugned order unfolded in the following way. SIA is a statutory entity
which regulates the private security industry in the United Kingdom. On
05 December 2018 SIA initiated a summary prosecution of the person described
above as the interested party. The summons alleges that the interested party
committed the offence of making to the SIA a statement that he knew to be false in a
material particular or, alternatively, recklessly making a statement which was false
in a material particular, namely that JJ Security Services Ltd had never traded,
contrary to section 22(1)(a) and (b) of the Private Security Industry Act 2001 (the
“2001 Act”).
[3] A second affidavit sworn by the SIA solicitor elaborates on the factual matrix
in these terms:
“On 16th August 2018 as part of a joint operation with [PSNI]
a number of warrants were executed at various addresses in
connection with an ongoing investigation into the supply of
unlicensed security industry operatives. Mr Bryson was
arrested and interviewed …
On 17th October 2018, [PSNI] applied to the Crown Court for a
production order under section 345 of the Proceeds of Crime
Act 2002. HHJ Crawford granted the Production Order.”
The next material development occurred on 05 December 2018 when the summons
underlying these proceedings was issued.
[4] Upon the direction of this court the materials served with the summons were
provided. These comprise, in summary, the witness statement of a SIA investigating
officer; email exchanges with the interested party; a “JJ Security Services” invoice
dated 11 July 2017 addressed to an identified “Bonfire committee” and describing the
services provided as “SIA Licensed Event Supervisors … 5 men for 6 hours at £15 ph”;
the transcript of a PACE interview of the interested party; two further SIA witness
statements, one of which confirms a Crown Court Production Order (see infra); some
154 pages of Ulster Bank statements relating to accounts in the name of the
interested party, evidently obtained pursuant to the last mentioned order; and,
finally, the interested party’s criminal record.
To continue reading
Request your trial
1 cases
-
The Registrar of Companies and JP Murphy Limited
...court proceedings. It is appropriate to observe, as the Divisional Court did recently in Re Security Industry Authority’s Application [2021] NIQB 106 at [49], that the principle of presumptive regularity (the omnia praesumuntur principle) applies to said order. In short, the order of McAlin......