Update from the Christian Institute

This article originally appeared in the Autumn 2026 edition of the Social Issues Bulletin.

Pastor Clive Johnston

The Christian Institute is supporting retired pastor and former president of the Association of Baptist Churches in Ireland, Clive Johnston, to appeal his conviction for preaching the Gospel in an abortion buffer zone.

In July 2024, Clive led a Sunday open-air service within an abortion ‘Safe Access Zone’ (SAZ) near Causeway Hospital in Coleraine but some distance from the hospital itself. Clive preached a gospel message and he and a small group sang gospel choruses. About ten minutes in, police officers attended and directed the group to leave. Clive refused and was cautioned by the police.

In February 2025, Clive was charged under the Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) Act (Northern Ireland) 2023 for conducting an act “with the intent of, or reckless as to whether it has the effect of, influencing a protected person” in connection with the protected person attending protected premises (i.e. an abortion clinic). Under the legislation, protected persons are those accessing abortion services, those accompanying such persons or those working at the premises.

The trial took place at Coleraine Magistrates Court on 17 December 2025. Clive was represented by the former Attorney General for Northern Ireland, John Larkin KC. After further hearings and written legal submissions earlier this year, the Magistrate handed down his judgment on 7 May. 

Judgment

The Magistrate’s findings of fact included the following:

• Clive was present in the SAZ on 7 July 2024 at the material time “along with a number of others as part of a ‘Return to the Cross’ event”.
• There were no anti-abortion placards displayed at the event, the sole visible indication of the event being a large wooden cross.
• Clive delivered a Christian sermon at the event refraining from any mention of abortion.
• Clive’s “decision to preach within the SAZ was motivated by two reasons – to test the legislation and to influence anyone who heard him towards the Bible and the Christian message generally”.

Although he accepted that no mention was made of abortion, the Magistrate found Clive guilty of both the charge of influencing and of failing immediately to leave the area after a police direction to do so. Clive was fined £450. Summing up, the Magistrate concluded:

Clive “was doing an act, in this case preaching the Gospel, intending that any person hearing it would be influenced whether directly or indirectly”.

Clive “was reckless as to whether a protected person in connection with them attending at the Causeway Hospital for a section 3 purpose hearing it would be influenced whether directly or indirectly”.

The Magistrate relied on a 2022 Supreme Court ruling in a reference made by the Attorney General for Northern Ireland regarding the human rights compatibility of the Northern Ireland SAZ legislation. That ruling had suggested that if the test for the offence under the legislation is met, a conviction will not breach a defendant’s rights to freedom of expression and freedom of religion and that a court does not need to further assess the human rights impact. This was disappointing. Clive’s legal team had stressed the need for the court to contextualise the Supreme Court judgment, particularly given the clear gap between gospel preaching and the activities which were intended to be caught by the legislation. 

Appeal

Clive is now pursuing an appeal to the Court of Appeal in Belfast. It is expected to look at the compatibility of how the legislation was used with Articles 9 (Freedom of thought, conscience and religion), 10 (Freedom of expression) and 11 (Freedom of assembly and association) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Judicial review of Civil Service involvement in ‘Pride’

The Christian Institute is pursuing a claim for judicial review in the High Court to challenge the active participation of civil servants in ‘Pride’ marches identifying themselves as civil servants. It argues that this breaches the Civil Service duty of impartiality and is therefore unlawful.

A particular focus for the legal challenge is the Birmingham Pride Parade on 23 May 2026.

Pride is a movement that advocates political, cultural and ideological goals. Pride organisations are engaged in political activities, including lobbying for changes to legislation and policies in favour of those who affirm gender ideology. The involvement of civil servants in Pride marches who are identifying themselves as civil servants (through wearing t-shirts or holding banners), raises an issue of public importance concerning the scope of the Civil Service’s responsibility to act impartially under the Civil Service Code. It associates the Civil Service with support for the contested political aims of Pride, particularly in relation to gender ideology. It communicates that the Civil Service is opposed to those who hold contrary points of view and has moved from a neutral position on ideologically contested issues.

Civil servants are the gatekeepers for ministers and the Ministerial Code requires ministers to give “fair consideration” to impartial advice from civil servants. Civil Service failure to adopt a neutral stance on the aims of the Pride movement is therefore liable to affect the output of legislation and public policy.

The aim of the judicial review is to secure greater neutrality in the Civil Service for Christian groups such as The Christian Institute to engage positively with civil servants about the impact of LGBT policies on religious freedom, marriage and the family, and education. A successful outcome in the judicial review would also help Christian civil servants who feel under pressure to affirm gender ideology and Pride contrary to their conscientiously held beliefs.

The Institute’s claim is similar to the successful challenge brought by Linzi Smith to the participation of Northumbria Police in the 2024 Newcastle Pride march. In that case, the High Court ruled that Northumbria Police had acted contrary to the police duty of impartiality by allowing officers to participate in the march, displaying Pride colours or insignia.

A decision is awaited from the High Court as to whether permission will be granted for the judicial review to go forward. The defendant is the Minister for the Cabinet Office.