‘UK is not a Gestapo state’: Judge blasts police over free speech transgender dispute

Police unlawfully interfered with a man’s right to freedom of expression by turning up at his place of work over his allegedly “transphobic” tweets, the High Court has ruled.
Former police officer Harry Miller with supporters outside the High Court, London, ahead of the ruling that his allegedly "transphobic" tweets were lawful and Humberside Police's response interfered with his right to freedom of expressionFormer police officer Harry Miller with supporters outside the High Court, London, ahead of the ruling that his allegedly "transphobic" tweets were lawful and Humberside Police's response interfered with his right to freedom of expression
Former police officer Harry Miller with supporters outside the High Court, London, ahead of the ruling that his allegedly "transphobic" tweets were lawful and Humberside Police's response interfered with his right to freedom of expression

Former police officer Harry Miller, 54, who founded the campaign group Fair Cop, said Humberside police’s actions had a “substantial chilling effect” on his right to free speech.

Mr Miller, who is from Lincolnshire, claims an officer told him that he had not committed a crime, but that his tweeting was being recorded as a “hate incident”.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Announcing the court’s decision, Mr Justice Julian Knowles said: “The claimant’s tweets were lawful and that there was not the slightest risk that he would commit a criminal offence by continuing to tweet.

“I find the combination of the police visiting the claimant’s place of work, and their subsequent statements in relation to the possibility of prosecution, were a disproportionate interference with the claimant’s right to freedom of expression because of their potential chilling effect.”

The judge added that the effect of the police turning up at Mr Miller’s place of work “because of his political opinions must not be underestimated”.

He continued: “To do so would be to undervalue a cardinal democratic freedom. In this country we have never had a Cheka, a Gestapo or a Stasi. We have never lived in an Orwellian society.”

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

In his judgment, Mr Justice Julian Knowles stated: “I conclude that the police left the claimant with the clear belief that he was being warned by them to desist from posting further tweets on transgender matters even if they did not directly warn him in terms.

“In other words, I conclude that the police’s actions led him, reasonably, to believe that he was being warned not to exercise his right to freedom of expression about transgender issues on pain of potential criminal prosecution.”

But Rejecting Mr Miller’s challenge to the College of Police guidance itself, the judge said he was “satisfied that the aims and objectives of (the guidance) justify the limitation it imposes on freedom of speech”.

Mr Justice Knowles said the guidance pursued “extremely important” aims, including “preventing, or taking steps to counter, hate crime and hate incidents” and preventing “the escalation of hate-based hostility from low-level non-criminal activity to criminal activity”.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

The judge has granted Mr Miller permission to appeal against his ruling on the lawfulness of the College of Police’s guidance.

Ian Wise QC, representing Mr Miller, asked the court to grant a “leapfrog” certificate to allow the case to go straight to the Supreme Court.

Jonathan Auburn, for the College of Police, agreed that the case was suitable to go directly to the UK’s highest court.

Mr Justice Knowles granted permission for the case to “leapfrog” to the Supreme Court, subject to that court’s permission.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

In a statement, Mr Miller’s solicitor Paul Conrathe from Sinclairslaw said: “We welcome today’s judgment, which is a vindication of Mr Miller’s actions in posting tweets that were critical of transgender ideology and practice.

“It is a strong warning to local police forces not to interfere with people’s free speech rights on matters of significant controversy.

“Today, the judge held that it is entirely acceptable to hold the view and communicate that a trans woman is not a woman. That view is not hateful, transphobic or unlawful.”