A High Court judge has ruled that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland acted lawfully in banning a controversial Portadown parade along the Garvaghy Road – despite the fact the Orange lodge had a legal right to walk the route under a Parades Commission determination.
The judgment, delivered in Belfast on Wednesday, examined the last–minute decision which meant a Portadown District Loyal Orange Lodge No. 1 procession scheduled for September 27 did not take place.
The parade, due to run from 8am to 9.30am, was to follow a contentious route including the Garvaghy Road. The Parades Commission had, on September 25, granted permission for the procession to go ahead along that route subject to conditions.
However, police informed the lodge shortly before the scheduled start that it was not safe to proceed because of a large protest blocking the Garvaghy Road. The Secretary of State then used powers under section 11 of the Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 to prohibit the procession.
In a detailed ruling, the judge held that members of the lodge “enjoyed the legal right to undertake their notified procession, including by processing along the Garvaghy Road, in accordance with the Parades Commission’s determination of 25 September 2026”.
But the court went on to conclude that the Secretary of State’s later decision to prohibit that procession, in light of the developing security and public order situation, was within the law.
The formal order – signed at 7.47pm on October 9 – stated that, having consulted the Parades Commission and the Chief Constable, the Secretary of State was “of the opinion that it is necessary in the public interest to prohibit the procession… and accordingly by this Order prohibits the Procession… with immediate effect”.
The judge found that the Secretary of State had properly considered the statutory criteria and the competing rights under human rights law, including the rights of marchers, residents and protesters.
The challenge also attacked the role of the PSNI and the Chief Constable’s decision to refer the Commission’s determination to the Secretary of State for review under section 9 of the 1998 Act.
The court rejected this, holding there was “nothing unlawful in the Chief Constable’s decision” to make that referral. While there were arguments over whether some comments about potential political implications of a major police operation were strictly relevant, the judge said these were not “material considerations” in the decision to seek the Secretary of State’s intervention.
The judgment records that the Orange lodge had complied with Commission restrictions on the Garvaghy Road return route for 28 years, and had made a “more concerted effort than it had done for some time” to secure a favourable ruling in 2026.
The Secretary of State’s own briefing noted the lodge had behaved peacefully, while “those protesting were acting unlawfully”, initially with hostility to police before the protest became peaceful albeit “unlawful including with the blocking roads”.
In assessing the lawfulness of the ban, the court said it had to weigh up the “competing human rights of both communities” in Portadown.
The judge observed that the ongoing possibility of a parade and counter‑protest had “forced the people of Portadown (on both sides of the dispute) to relive past disputes and rekindled previous anger”, with the “equal and opposite forces of the procession and the protest” perpetuating harm.
“I have attempted to find a resolution of this matter in a way that balances the competing human rights but all such attempts are now exhausted and it is clear that the equal and opposite forces of the procession and the protest are perpetuating harm to both communities. The public interest is best served, therefore, if the procession does not occur,” the judgment states.
As things stand, the specific notified parade will not proceed at all, though the court stressed this “is not to say that the Lodge cannot notify similar intended processions in the future”.
The application for judicial review by Alan Hynes, on behalf of the lodge, was therefore dismissed, with the court upholding both the Secretary of State’s prohibition order and the lawfulness of the PSNI’s actions.
