A 78-year-old retired pastor in Northern Ireland now carries a criminal record for preaching a Gospel message outside a hospital, a conviction that legal advocates say may be the first of its kind under the country's abortion-related buffer-zone law.

District Judge Peter King found Clive Johnston guilty on May 7 at Coleraine Magistrates' Court of breaching a "safe access zone" outside Causeway Hospital in Coleraine. Johnston was fined 450 pounds, roughly $614, for an incident that took place on July 7, 2024, Fox News reported.

The charge: "influencing" within a protected zone under Northern Ireland's Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) Act. The act bans "influencing," "preventing or impeding access," or "causing harassment, alarm, or distress" to a protected person within 100 meters, about 328 feet, of any facility where abortions are performed.

Johnston's sermon, by all accounts, did not mention abortion. He used a microphone to sing worship music and recite John 3:16, one of the most widely recognized verses in the Bible. The Christian Institute, a legal advocacy group supporting Johnston, said he may be the first person prosecuted under the law for preaching a sermon that did not reference abortion.

That distinction matters. The safe access zone law was sold as a measure to protect women entering abortion facilities from harassment. What it produced, in practice, was the criminal conviction of a septuagenarian for reading Scripture aloud.

Johnston responds: 'A very serious line'

Johnston did not mince words about the verdict. He told Fox News Digital:

"At 78 years old, I never imagined I would leave a courtroom with a criminal conviction for preaching the Christian gospel."

He went further, warning that the ruling redefines what counts as illegal conduct in public spaces:

"It effectively redefines peaceful Christian witness as a form of unlawful 'influence.' 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."

Johnston also zeroed in on the specific verse that landed him in court. As the New York Post reported, he pointed out the absurdity of criminalizing a passage about God's love:

"John 3:16 is one of the most well-known and hope-filled verses in the Bible, a message about God's love and salvation. If even that can be criminalized because of where it is spoken, then how can any public expression of Christian belief be truly safe from restriction?"

The question is not rhetorical. It is the central legal issue now facing Johnston and anyone else who dares speak publicly about their faith within earshot of a designated zone.

A law designed for harassment, applied to hymns

Northern Ireland's safe access zone law was crafted with a specific kind of conduct in mind, protesters blocking clinic entrances, shouting at patients, or physically impeding access. The statutory language sweeps far broader than that. "Influencing" is not defined with the kind of precision you would expect from a law that carries criminal penalties. And the 100-meter radius creates a wide perimeter around hospitals that perform abortions, hospitals that also serve the general public for every other medical purpose.

Johnston was not blocking a door. He was not confronting patients. He was singing and preaching outdoors, covering a Bible verse that says nothing about abortion. The court nonetheless found that his conduct amounted to unlawful "influence."

This is not an isolated pattern. Johnston's conviction follows a growing list of cases across the United Kingdom in which religious expression has collided with buffer-zone enforcement. CBN News noted that a woman in the U.K. was previously targeted by police for praying silently under similar pretenses. Fox News reported that other prosecutions have involved silent prayer and signs offering conversation, conduct that, in any other context, would be considered plainly protected speech.

The U.S. State Department has also taken notice. Fox News noted that the department has been monitoring buffer-zone cases in the U.K., a sign that even American officials recognize the free-speech implications radiating from these prosecutions.

An appeal expected, and a broader warning

Danny Davis, a Kentucky-based pastor and friend of Johnston's, told Kentucky Today that he was surprised to learn about the conviction. He said Johnston plans to appeal the ruling. But Davis also warned that the stakes extend well beyond one retired pastor in Coleraine:

"If this thing stands, it's a terrible precedent that others would build upon to silence Christians."

Davis said the ruling could send a chilling effect to Christians across Europe and beyond. That concern is not speculative. Finland's Supreme Court recently convicted a sitting parliamentarian over a decades-old church pamphlet on marriage, and similar legal confrontations over Christian expression are multiplying across the continent.

Ciarán Kelly, director of The Christian Institute, described Johnston's case as an instance of "creeping censorship." Kelly's organization has pledged to help Johnston weigh his appeal options:

"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 consider his options for appeal."

The Christian Institute's framing, that this is the first prosecution under the law for a sermon that never mentioned abortion, is significant. If the statute can reach a man singing hymns and reading John 3:16 simply because he stood within 100 meters of a hospital that performs abortions, then the law's reach is functionally limitless within that zone. Any public religious speech could qualify as "influencing."

The real precedent at stake

The conviction raises a question that goes beyond Northern Ireland's borders. Buffer-zone laws are spreading across the U.K. and parts of Europe. A British pastor in Watford faces hate-speech charges tied to street preaching, and the legal architecture enabling these prosecutions is being tested and expanded in real time.

What Johnston's case reveals is how easily a law designed to prevent genuine harassment can be weaponized against peaceful religious expression. The word "influencing" does the heavy lifting. It is vague enough to cover almost anything, a prayer, a hymn, a Bible reading, if a court decides the speaker's proximity to a protected zone makes the speech unlawful.

The court did not allege that Johnston harassed anyone. It did not allege that he blocked access to the hospital. It did not allege that he caused alarm or distress in any specific, documented way. It found that he "influenced", and that was enough for a criminal conviction.

Johnston's supporters are right to see this as a test case. If a 78-year-old man can be convicted for reading the most famous verse in the New Testament because he stood too close to a building, then the law is no longer about protecting patients. It is about controlling speech.

The Trump administration has monitored this prosecution, and American observers should pay attention. The legal theories being tested in Coleraine have a way of crossing oceans.

What remains unanswered

Several questions remain open. The full text of Judge King's ruling has not been published in any of the available reporting. It is unclear what specific conduct, beyond preaching and singing, the court relied on to find "influencing." It is also unclear how the 100-meter boundary was measured or whether Johnston's position relative to the hospital entrance was contested.

No appeal has been formally filed yet, though Johnston's allies say one is expected. The Christian Institute has committed resources to the effort, and the case has drawn attention from media outlets on both sides of the Atlantic, including Breitbart, Fox News, the New York Post, and CBN News.

The outcome of any appeal will matter far beyond Coleraine. It will signal whether Northern Ireland's courts treat religious speech as a fundamental liberty or as a regulable nuisance, something to be zoned out of public life like a noise complaint.

When reading John 3:16 aloud is a criminal act, the law has stopped protecting anyone. It has started punishing belief itself.