A retired pastor in Northern Ireland is facing prosecution for leading a Sunday service in public, raising fresh concerns that the UK’s buffer zone laws are being used to curb free speech and religious expression.
Clive Johnston, 76, a former President of the Association of Baptist Churches in Ireland, was cautioned by police on 7 July 2023 after preaching on John 3:16 near Causeway Hospital in Coleraine, one of eight sites in Northern Ireland covered by abortion buffer zones.
The Christian Institute, which is supporting Johnston, claims the service took place on the “fringes” of the buffer zone and that he did not mention abortion. Despite this, Johnston has since received a court summons under the Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) Act (Northern Ireland) 2023, following complaints made about his presence near the hospital.
This legislation creates “safe access zones” around “protected sites” that provide abortion services, extending 100 metres (or up to 150 metres in some cases) from each entrance or exit. Operators must apply to the Department of Health, which then designates and publishes protected sites along with their zone boundaries.
Under the Act, it is a criminal offense for anyone other than patients, companions, or staff to engage in activities within a safe access zone “with the intent of, or reckless as to whether it has the effect of”: influencing a person accessing abortion services, whether directly or indirectly; preventing or impeding access to the premises; or causing harassment, alarm, or distress to a patient or staff member
The term “influence” is not defined in the legislation, which has led to concerns about its broad and ambiguous scope. From the outset, critics warned that the wording could criminalise peaceful or silent activities, such as praying, handing out leaflets, or even standing in quiet protest.
Supporters of the law argue that these measures are necessary to protect staff and patients from harassment and intimidation, while opponents warn that the vague term “influence” leaves too much discretion to police and prosecutors.
That uncertainty is now central to Johnston’s case. Separated from the hospital by a dual carriageway, he has nonetheless been charged under the Act with seeking to “influence” individuals accessing abortion services within the censorship zone.
Even before it was signed into law, the Bill faced legal scrutiny on this point. In 2022, the Attorney General for Northern Ireland referred it to the UK Supreme Court, questioning whether Clause 5’s broad offense of “influencing” disproportionately restricted freedoms of expression, assembly, and conscience under the European Convention on Human Rights. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the law was justified and proportionate.
Johnston, who has never been in trouble with the police before, now faces two charges under the Act. If convicted, he could receive a criminal record and thousands of pounds in fines.
A preliminary hearing is scheduled for Friday, 21 March, in Coleraine, with a full trial expected in the coming months.
Simon Calvert, Deputy Director of The Christian Institute, condemned the prosecution, and emphasised that no abortion-related placards or banners were displayed, and that abortion was never mentioned during the service:
“It’s just not reasonable or rational to suggest that preaching the Gospel, with no reference to abortion, is a protest against abortion. The police and the Public Prosecution Service are over-stepping the mark. This is not what buffer zones were designed to do,” he said.
Describing the scene, Calvert added:
“This was an open-air service held on a Sunday, with about a dozen people in attendance, on a patch of grass, separated from Causeway Hospital by a dual carriageway. There was a wooden cross, and Clive leading the singing of well-known hymns on a ukulele. Yet the police summons says he ‘conducted a protest’ to try to ‘influence’ patients or staff attending the abortion clinic. This is religiously illiterate.”
Calvert also questioned whether other non-abortion-related activities in these zones could also be criminalised:
“Speech that has nothing to do with abortion should not be criminalised as if it is an anti-abortion protest. If prosecutors succeed in convicting Clive for preaching about God’s love, what will that mean for other forms of speech in these zones? Could people protesting health service cutbacks or junior doctors’ pay outside a hospital be prosecuted?”
A Public Prosecution Service (PPS) spokesperson said that the decision to prosecute was made following careful consideration of all available evidence:
“All PPS decisions are taken impartially, independently, and strictly in line with the Code for Prosecutors. As proceedings in this case will begin imminently, it would be inappropriate to comment further.”
News of Johnston’s prosecution comes amid mounting international scrutiny of Britain’s approach to free speech. Just weeks ago, US Vice President JD Vance warned at the Munich Security Conference that the greatest threat to Western democracies was not external aggression, but the erosion of free speech from within. He singled out Britain, arguing the government is increasingly restricting individual conscience and treating religious expression as subversive.
His speech referenced Adam Smith-Connor, a British Army veteran convicted under the UK Government’s 2023 Buffer Zones Law (an amendment to the Public Order Act 1986) after being found guilty of silent prayer within 200 metres of an abortion facility. Smith-Connor was given a two-year conditional discharge and ordered to pay thousands of pounds in legal costs to the prosecution.
Unlike Northern Ireland’s Safe Access Zones Act, which applies only to specific designated sites, the UK Government’s Buffer Zones Law introduced a nationwide ban on “influencing” within 150–200 metres of abortion facilities in England and Wales.
Johnston’s case is the latest in a growing pattern of prosecutions under buffer zone laws on both sides of the Irish Sea. Critics warn that these measures, which were originally justified as protections against harassment, are now being used to criminalise peaceful religious expression, even when abortion isn’t mentioned.
