A Christian artist who was barred from her own exhibition and reported to police over her gender-critical views is pursuing an expanded legal claim against a local authority, after newly disclosed documents revealed that a council official falsely claimed a police hate crime investigation was under way.
Victoria Culf, 44, launched proceedings last year against Watford Borough Council and one of its employees following a workplace conversation about gender identity theory that, she says, was later misrepresented in a campaign to exclude her from the exhibition and remove her from a separate art project.
With support from the Christian Legal Centre, Culf is now pursuing an amended claim that includes new evidence obtained through legal disclosure. Her lawyers allege that a council official misled senior staff by fabricating a police incident number and falsely stating that a hate crime report had been logged against Culf.
The case stems from an encounter in March 2023, when Culf was preparing an independently funded exhibition at Watford Museum. While making tea in a shared kitchen, she was approached by a council colleague who disclosed that her child was socially transitioning and had attempted to access puberty blockers through the Tavistock Gender Identity Development Service (Gids) – a contentious NHS clinic that, for many years, placed a strong emphasis on affirming a child’s chosen gender identity before initiating a medical pathway with understudied and potentially lifelong, irreversible consequences.
Culf, a practising Christian and experienced artist and educator, said she responded politely but with honesty. Drawing on her religious convictions and professional background, she expressed concern about the medical transition of minors, noting that the brain continues to develop until around twenty-four and that children can be “too young to properly assess risk”. That was why, in her view, the Tavistock GIDS should be shut down – an opinion later echoed by the independent Cass Review, which led to Gids’s formal closure in March 2024, an indefinite pause on puberty-blocker prescriptions, and a shift away from medical-first approaches in favour of more cautious, evidence-based alternatives.
She tempered her remarks by adding, “I wouldn’t be true to myself if I agreed with you”, and acknowledged that her colleague, as a parent, knew what was best for her own family.
Although Culf believed the exchange had ended amicably, it later emerged that her colleague had posted on social media accusing her of delivering a “transphobic rant”. The following day, Culf was contacted by the council and informed that harassment allegations had been made. She was also told she would not be permitted to return to the museum without giving twenty-four hours’ notice, and was advised that the police were investigating her for a hate crime.
However, police documents later obtained by her legal team show that no such investigation took place. According to the logbook, officers declined to record the report as an incident and described Culf’s comments as protected free speech.
Nevertheless, in correspondence disclosed to the court, the council employee wrote to her line manager claiming: “The Hate Crime Officer called me. It has been logged as an incident with the number HC-08062023-0528.” This false assurance appears to have played a central role in persuading senior council staff that a police investigation was under way.
The same official also stated that she had contacted Ask for Clive, a local LGBTQI+ charity that promotes inclusion and encourages the reporting of hate incidents. In a message to her manager, the official wrote: “With the support of you and Clive I felt able to call the police,” and added that she was receiving “ongoing support” from the organisation. Ask for Clive describes itself as partnering with local venues to “create welcoming environments for the LGBTQ+ community”. Its website advises individuals to report any instance of discrimination or hate, including anonymously, and states that police “will record and investigate the offence even if you do not want to give your details”.
Culf’s legal team alleges that Watford Borough Council failed to verify the employee’s claims and instead acted unquestioningly. It is also alleged that officials pressured a private arts organisation, BEEE Creative, which later removed her from a community project. In addition, the council is accused of treating her as though she were under criminal investigation for several months, despite being aware that police had not logged the incident or taken action. Lawyers argue that this caused reputational damage and loss of income, and was the result of a campaign by the employee to have Culf professionally sanctioned for her views.
In her amended claim, Culf continues to pursue multiple causes of action, including breach of contract, discrimination, harassment, misfeasance in public office, negligence, defamation and malicious falsehood.
Speaking after the latest developments, she said: “I genuinely feared a knock at the door or a call asking me to explain myself, or worse. Based on the truth and what was really happening, that contact was never going to come.
“I now know this was a pack of lies, designed to intimidate me. It’s deeply troubling that my accuser misled the council, and yet they were all too willing to go along with it without impartially investigating it for themselves.”
