A 78-year-old retired minister now carries a criminal record for reading the Bible on a public roadside. District Judge Peter King convicted Clive Johnston on May 7 at Coleraine Magistrates' Court for breaching a "safe access zone" outside Causeway Hospital in Coleraine, Northern Ireland, and fined him 450 pounds, roughly $614. His offense: preaching a gospel sermon that, by all accounts, never once mentioned abortion.

Johnston's conviction marks what the Christian Institute calls the first prosecution under Northern Ireland's Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) Act for a sermon that made no reference to abortion services at all. The law prohibits "influencing," "preventing or impeding access," or "causing harassment, alarm or distress" to a protected person within 100 meters, about 328 feet, of facilities where abortions are performed. Johnston was found guilty of doing an act in the zone with intent, or recklessness, as to whether it influenced a protected person, and of failing to comply with a police direction to leave.

The case has drawn attention from Washington. The U.S. State Department said it was monitoring Johnston's prosecution ahead of his April hearing, and a spokesperson confirmed on Monday that the United States continues to track multiple "buffer zone" cases across the United Kingdom.

Body camera footage and the roadside encounter

The incident that led to Johnston's conviction occurred on July 7, 2024. Body camera footage from that day, as reported by Fox News Digital, shows a police officer approaching Johnston as he preached on the side of a road near Causeway Hospital. The officer acknowledged Johnston's intentions but warned him the law drew a hard line.

The officer told Johnston directly: "You can say to yourself, in the goodness of my heart, 'I am coming here to preach the word of God.'" But the officer continued: "However, if you are reckless, as to the effect that it could have on patients, staff or any protected person, then you may be committing an offense."

The officer suggested Johnston move inside the hospital's chaplaincy area if he wanted a "safe area" to offer "religious guidance or comfort or help." But the officer also made clear the zone's reach: "While you're out here in the safe access zone, any act in that area which may dissuade any protected person from availing services, harassment or cause them distress, is an offense."

Johnston stayed. He preached. And nearly a year later, a court ruled that reading John 3:16, a verse about God's love and salvation, within earshot of a hospital constituted unlawful "influence."

A pastor's response and the question of appeal

Johnston did not mince words after his conviction. Speaking outside the courthouse, he framed the ruling as a threat that extends well beyond his own case.

"Naturally, I was deeply saddened by the verdict. At 78 years old, I never imagined I would leave a courtroom with a criminal conviction for preaching the Christian gospel. But beyond the personal impact, my overriding concern is what this says about the state of fundamental freedoms in our nation."

He pressed the point further, challenging the logic of a law that criminalizes speech with no connection to the activity the zone was designed to protect. Johnston told Fox News Digital that the conviction "effectively redefines peaceful Christian witness as a form of unlawful 'influence'" and warned that "if simply reading the Bible, praying, and preaching on God's love can now be considered harmful because someone might overhear it within a certain area, then we have crossed a very serious line."

The Trump administration had already flagged the case before the verdict came down, with the State Department publicly noting its interest in the prosecution.

Johnston also raised a question that deserves a straight answer from the authorities who prosecuted him: "If an act that doesn't mention abortion is criminalized, what other acts could fall within the reach of this law?" No one in an official capacity appears to have answered that yet.

The Christian Institute weighs in

Ciarán Kelly, director of the Christian Institute, called the ruling a direct threat to two foundational freedoms at once. Kelly said the organization would help Johnston explore his options for appeal.

"If the ruling stands it will represent a shocking new restriction on freedom of religion and freedom of speech so we will be helping Clive to consider the options for appeal."

The Christian Institute had already been involved in Johnston's defense and has described a pattern of what Kelly called "creeping censorship" in the United Kingdom. Johnston is currently weighing whether to challenge the conviction. The New York Post reported that free-speech and religious-liberty advocates view the case as a major test of buffer-zone laws across the U.K.

Northern Ireland's Public Prosecution Service confirmed the conviction to Fox News Digital, stating that Johnston "was found guilty and convicted by the court of doing an act in a safe access zone with the intent of or being reckless as to whether it had the effect of influencing a protected person attending the premises; and failing to comply with a direction to leave a safe access zone." The court judgment, issued by the judiciary of Northern Ireland, said Johnston's actions "amounted to an offense" under the Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) Act.

Cases like Johnston's are not isolated to Northern Ireland. Finnish MP Päivi Räsänen faced prosecution over a Bible pamphlet and has since taken her conviction to the European Court of Human Rights, arguing that criminalizing the expression of religious belief violates fundamental freedoms.

A pattern across the United Kingdom

Johnston's case is not the only prosecution to raise alarms. Fox News Digital reported that Rose Docherty, a Scottish grandmother, was arrested twice for holding a sign offering conversation within a protected zone. Charges against Docherty were eventually dropped. Demonstrators protested the abortion clinic buffer zone law outside the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh on September 24, 2024, where a separate Scottish law establishes a 200-meter protected zone.

The State Department spokesperson offered a blunt assessment of the broader trend. The spokesperson told Fox News Digital that "the U.K.'s persecution of silent prayer represents not only an egregious violation of the fundamental right to free speech and religious liberty, but also a concerning departure from the shared values that ought to underpin U.S.-U.K. relations."

That language, "persecution" and "egregious violation", is not the kind of diplomatic boilerplate allies typically exchange. It reflects a growing gap between the United States and the United Kingdom on how governments should treat religious expression in public spaces. The Trump administration has made religious liberty a stated domestic priority and has shown a willingness to call out allied governments when those freedoms are at stake.

What the law actually says, and what it now means

Northern Ireland's Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) Act, which appears to have been published in early 2023, creates a 100-meter perimeter around abortion facilities. Within that zone, the law bars acts of "influencing," "preventing or impeding access," or "causing harassment, alarm or distress" to protected persons. The statute's language is broad by design.

Johnston's conviction tests the outer boundary of that breadth. His sermon did not reference abortion. He did not block access. He did not target individuals. He stood on a public road and read Scripture. The court nonetheless concluded that his preaching amounted to unlawful influence on a protected person, a finding that, if it stands, means virtually any public religious expression within the zone can be prosecuted at the discretion of authorities.

The case also carries echoes of the prosecution of pro-life activist Mark Houck in the United States, where federal authorities pursued charges that ultimately collapsed, but not before the process itself served as punishment.

Johnston himself recognized the stakes clearly. He urged fellow Christians "not to give in to fear or discouragement" and to "continue to respond with grace, peace, and courage, never with anger or hostility, but with firm conviction." He described his decision to preach within the zone as deliberate: "The whole point of preaching within the buffer zone was to stand against the chilling effect that these zones have on gospel preaching."

Open questions the court has not answered

Several facts remain unclear. The court judgment has not been reported to identify any specific protected person who was allegedly influenced by Johnston's preaching. It is not clear whether the prosecution argued that any individual was actually dissuaded from accessing services, or whether the mere possibility was enough. The Public Prosecution Service's statement to Fox News Digital described the conviction in general statutory terms but offered no detail about the alleged harm.

Johnston is weighing his appeal options with the help of the Christian Institute. If he proceeds, the case could become the first appellate test of whether buffer-zone laws can reach speech that has no connection to the services the zones were created to protect.

When a country criminalizes a 78-year-old man for reading John 3:16 on a public road, the law is no longer protecting anyone. It is making an example of someone, and the example it makes should concern every person who still believes free people have the right to speak, pray, and preach without a government permission slip.