Bridget Phillipson will face legal action over her decision to stop commencement of new free speech laws designed to protect academics from cancel culture (Telegraph).
The Education Secretary shelved the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act just days before it was due to come into force in August and said she would consider repealing it.
Now, though, the Free Speech Union (FSU) has been granted permission to appeal the move, with a judicial review hearing set to take place in the High Court on January 23rd.
Our claim is that Ms Phillipson acted unlawfully by removing protections for “people of certain protected groups”, such as “gender-critical persons or those who espouse minority political views”.
We also say that the Education Secretary was not entitled to pull the plug on the Act through a written ministerial statement alone, and that “any repeal of the legislation is a matter for Parliament not the executive”.
In a legal document confirming permission to appeal the move, a High Court judge said it was in the “public interest” for the issue to be resolved promptly.
Encouragingly, the judge added that even if Ms Phillipson intended only to “pause” the Act while options were being considered, “it is arguable that it was insufficient for the purposes of s. 149 of the Equality Act 2010 to proceed on the basis that no significant impacts were foreseen”.
It comes as the Government faces backlash from academics over Ms Phillipson’s decision to shelve the free speech laws.
The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act would have established a new complaints scheme allowing students, staff and visiting speakers to seek compensation if they were “cancelled” on campus.
This vital piece of legislation would have also strengthened protections against foreign interference, granting the Office for Students new powers to terminate universities’ overseas partnerships if they were found to have contravened free speech duties.
The Act was introduced after a series of rows over the so-called cancellation of academics and students because of their views. They include Kathleen Stock, a philosophy professor, who resigned from Sussex University in 2021 after what she described as a witch-hunt over her views on transgender issues.
Department for Education (DfE) officials say they have now met with 40 academics and representatives of minority groups to discuss their concerns over Ms Phillipson’s intervention.
Sources close to the discussions say they are furious the Act has been painted as a “Tory hate charter” designed to stoke the culture wars.
Baroness Jacqui Smith, the universities minister, confirmed last month that she believed there was a free speech problem at UK universities.
“I absolutely reiterate that I and the Government believe that there is an issue about freedom of speech and academic freedom on our campuses. It is of fundamental importance, which is why we need to get it right,” she said during a House of Lords debate on the subject.
But Ms Phillipson has insisted universities are being treated like a “political battlefield”, and that the legislation could “expose students to harm and appalling hate speech on campuses”.
A source close to discussions said they had been informed by DfE officials that a decision would be made on the Act’s future by “the autumn”.
Judicial review proceedings are notoriously expensive, all the more so when taking on the might of central government with its army of lawyers. We expect they will be throwing everything they’ve got at this case, because politically they cannot afford to lose. But nor can we.
We have a stellar legal team: our solicitor, George McLellan, is a partner at Sharpe Pritchard LLP, and our barristers Tom Cross and Zoe Gannon at 11KBW, are top notch public law specialists. The FSU in-house legal team is also working hard to support them so that we can save whatever money we can while presenting the strongest possible case. But this is the biggest fight we have taken on to date and is going to require hundreds of hours of research, preparation, drafting and other work leading up to an eventual hearing. We also need to be prepared for the risk of having to pay some of the Government’s costs if we lose.
Thank you for your help in this fight. Your donation will help us strike a blow for academic freedom and send a message to the Government that the power of the executive is not unlimited.
