In a ruling with significant implications for free expression and the political neutrality of public institutions, the High Court has found that Northumbria Police breached its duty of impartiality by allowing officers to take part in a Pride event. Free Speech Union member Linzi Smith brought the successful legal challenge, with support from the campaign group We Are Fair Cop.
The case arose from the force’s decision to allow officers to march in Newcastle’s 2024 Pride in the City parade and to staff a police stall decorated in the colours of the Progress flag, alongside a van painted in the same design, all while visibly associating themselves with the political messaging of the event.
At the heart of the dispute was the relationship between policing, impartiality, and belief. Linzi is a gender-critical lesbian who believes that sex is real, binary and immutable – a view protected under the Equality Act 2010 and the European Convention on Human Rights. For many who hold such beliefs, the Progress flag is not simply a symbol of LGBTQ+ inclusivity, but a marker of ‘gender ideology’: the contested claim that self-declared gender identity, rather than biological sex, should take precedence in policy and law.
As the judgment records, Northern Pride, the organiser of the event in Newcastle, openly campaigns for that ideology and has stated that gender-critical people are not welcome on its marches. When police officers appear in uniform and under official branding while displaying that flag, the message it conveys to gender-critical citizens is not one of neutrality, but of institutional alignment with one side in a highly polarised and legally sensitive public debate.
This, ultimately, is what made it a legal issue. Police officers have a duty to act with impartiality, and to be seen to do so. That duty is set out in the Police Regulations 2003, the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020, and the College of Policing’s non-statutory Code of Ethics, which chief constables are required to have regard to. Officers must avoid activities likely to interfere with the impartial discharge of their duties, or that risk creating the impression they may not do so.
In the judgment handed down, Mr Justice Linden held that Chief Constable Vanessa Jardine acted unlawfully in authorising participation in this way. He found that the decision was not legally open to her, since “on any view” the activities would be likely to give rise to the impression that officers might not act impartially in discharging their policing duties, particularly where protests or public speech on gender identity or women’s sex-based rights are concerned. The judge emphasised that impartiality is a core constitutional principle of policing, and that the duty applies at all times, on or off duty, with particular force when officers appear in uniform. He concluded that the Chief Constable’s reasoning showed serious legal flaws, and that her decision fell outside the range of reasonable outcomes available to her in law.
The judge also found the decision to be flawed on further grounds, including a serious misreading of the Public Sector Equality Duty, which is a statutory duty set out in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. The Chief Constable had wrongly treated the PSED as justifying, or even requiring, police participation in Pride, rather than recognising that the duty of impartiality must take precedence. As the court made clear, the Equality Act does not authorise otherwise unlawful conduct simply because it is pursued in the name of equality or inclusion. The duty is to have due regard to certain equality aims, not to disregard other binding legal obligations.
Described by the court as raising “important, current, controversial and [matters] of public interest”, the case is expected to shape decision-making not only in Northumbria, but across police forces nationwide. Practices currently vary: some forces, such as the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI), prohibit uniformed Pride participation, while others, including Police Scotland and Merseyside, continue to allow it. In the absence of clear national guidance, the ruling provides much-needed clarity on the legal limits of police impartiality.
You can read the full judgment here.
