Jamie Bryson addresses the media as the legal challenge over NI Secretary's ban on the Drumcree parade continued. "We now know for the first time since 2015, of continued existence of the provisional IRA. Now we go to see what’s actually underlying that intelligence."

The audience couldn't believe their eyes 😮

If this is what ultimately transpires (and I’ve no idea, let’s wait and see) then unionism would be faced not only with sustaining in office the chief mobster, but doing so in context of it now transpiring PIRA remain in existence & influencing policing.

‼️ 𝐄𝐱𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐫: 𝐉𝐮𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐑𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰 𝐚𝐠𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐭 𝐂𝐡𝐢𝐞𝐟 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐒𝐞𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐃𝐫𝐮𝐦𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐞 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 👇 This is a short explainer ahead of tomorrow’s Judicial Review and what it is about, and importantly what it isn’t about. Crucially, 𝐢𝐭 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐧𝐨 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐜𝐭- 𝐞𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐰𝐚𝐲- 𝐮𝐩𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥 𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐩𝐥𝐞𝐬 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐰 𝐛𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐡𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐥𝐚𝐰 𝐢𝐧 𝐛𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐀𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐥 𝐚𝐮𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐲. 𝐓𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐢𝐬 𝐰𝐨𝐧. The Judicial Review proceedings challenge three decisions: (i) the decision of the Chief Constable to make a section 9 referral asking the Secretary of State (‘SoS’) to ‘review’ the determination; (ii) two of the SoS’ three decisions upon review, one of which was to confirm the lawfulness of the determination (this isn’t challenged), but the other two which purported to determine it could not be now given effect and had no enduring legal effect (pretty much the same thing) are challenged; and (iii) the decision under section 11 to prohibit the notified parade from now taking place. The case is **NOT** about the lawfulness of the determination granting the legal right to walk the Garvaghy Road. That legal right is established now, and has been upheld by the High Court and Court of Appeal. Nothing in this case can alter that in any way. Put simply, the core legal victory is secured and unchangeable. In basic form the challenge is grounded on the following grounds. There is obviously material which, as it is subject to a duty of confidence, cannot be referred to until such times as it is reported in open court, so that is why you may wonder what the underlying basis of some of the challenge is. That will become clearer. Here’s the core points: 🚨 The Chief Constable took into account irrelevant and this immaterial considerations in his assessment. This infected his referral, and in so far as SoS then relied upon this assessment, it also infected the SoS’ decisions. 🚨 The SoS acting under section 9 can only do one of three things: confirm, amend or revoke a determination. He confirmed the determination, but then purported- without amendment or revoking- to determine it could not be given effect. This was no more than a declaratory opinion, outside the terms of section 9 (2) (a)-(c), and had no legal effect. Accordingly, we argue, all he has actually done as a matter of law is confirm the determination, the other decisions being unlawful and of no force or effect. 🚨 In regards section 11 (the power to prohibit the process) the core complaint is the SoS misapplied the Human Rights test, in particular in starting from the wrong point. He began the balancing exercise by starting the lawful determination and the unlawful protest from the same place, rather than properly applying the structured test- with the presumption in favour of the notified procession- as now established by the Court of Appeal. Moreover; he failed to consider any less intrusive measures short of the complete prohibition. 🚨 Additionally, in so far as section 11 was based on the unlawful purported determinations under section 9 and/or the asserted unlawful assessment of the Chief Constable, this like a domino effect also infects the section 11 decision. These decisions are the exercise of discretionary powers, and are notoriously difficult to challenge. This case is going to be extremely hard to win (albeit, feed it into the legal computer, and we should). And even if successful, the SoS could well just retake the decision, and so so lawfully correcting the errors. But, it’s also important the utility in ensuring these matters, and thus the underlying decision making, is subject to public scrutiny for all sorts of reasons. There are matters which, I believe, it will be in the public interest to have analysed in open court.

If this is what ultimately transpires (and I’ve no idea, let’s wait and see) then unionism would be faced not only with sustaining in office the chief mobster, but doing so in context of it now transpiring PIRA remain in existence & influencing policing.

With no cameras in the courtroom, The Trial of Russell Brand podcast brings you daily reporting from inside. Listen or watch every weekday.