Jamie Bryson asks court to return items seized during arrest

by Paul Higgins

Loyalist blogger Jamie Bryson was in court today (wed) seeking the return of property police seized from him during an investigation into the illegal supply of door staff. 

The prominent loyalist was arrested by police under the Private Security Industry Act 2001 as they investigated alleged criminality linked to the UVF in east Belfast. 

Working alongside the Security Industry Authority, conducted searches at two residential addresses in Bangor and Donaghadee, as well as an office premises in Newtownards where they seized a number of items including a BB gun, laptops, and iPad, documents and camouflage clothing. 

Although arrested, Mr Bryson was freed without charge and posted on online video lambasting his arrest as “absurd.”

At Newtownards Magistrates Court today (wed) and representing himself, Mr Bryson formally lodged an application to have that property returned to him by the PSNI Chief Constable. 

He argued that despite the search being conducted under a PSNI warrant, “I say that this is an SIA investigation, not the police, and they have no powers to hand the SIA the materials.”

He claimed that some items were seized by the SIA, despite them having no powers to do so, while other items taken by the PSNI were handed over to the SIA who took them to their offices at Canary Wharf in London.

“I say that they had no authority to take the property,” Mr Bryson told the court adding that it is his “assertion that they have pulled together a patchwork to pull together powers that statute does not give them.”

A lawyer for the PSNI said the legality of the warrants “have not been challenged, the execution of the warrants have not been challenged” and maintained that “its a police investigation” but Mr Bryson’s application had raised “a number of issues aimed at the exercising of powers of the police and SIA.”

He told the court that “at the moment,” his instructions were to resist Mr Bryson’s application and that while the PSNI would be writing to Mr Bryson about the matter in the next two weeks, the issues to be resolved maybe a matter for a Judicial Review in the High Court. 

“For the purposes of this case, the police seized the material, it’s supporting the SIA in its investigation, they have the material and they have that lawfully,” the lawyer argued."

He continued that the SIA “are exploring with Mr Bryson’s solicitor what is legally professionally privileged material and what is journalist material.”

District Judge Mark Hamill told Mr Bryson and the PSNI lawyer however “you are both in the wrong Court, this should be in the Judicial Review Court.”

While Mr Bryson said he accepted “its a matter for a JR,” he was seeking an assurance the seized material should not be examined until the legal issues surrounding its seizure had been resolved. 

“They should return the material to me,” declared Mr Bryson, “or at the very least...the court could seek an undertaking from the police and a third party undertaking from SIA that the material will not be interfered with until the matter is resolved.”

Adjourning the case to 28 November for review, Judge Hamill quipped to Mr Bryson that on this issue, “you may know the law better than I do.”