In a notable victory for free speech, the High Court has dismissed a judicial review challenge to Greater Manchester Police’s decision not to take action against gender critical blogger Stuart Campbell – a member of the Free Speech Union (FSU) – known on X as @WingsScotland.
The legal challenge was brought by a trans woman who reported Campbell to police over a series of tweets posted in 2023. In the tweets, Campbell criticised what he described as the politicisation of Brianna Ghey’s murder by trans activists and expressed views on biological sex. The claimant alleged the tweets breached section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 or section 127 of the Communications Act 2003.
Several of the tweets cited in the complaint were quoted in the court’s written ruling. In one, Campbell wrote, “These disgusting ghouls are SO excited that a trans person has finally been murdered in the UK, so they can use it to attack [JK] Rowling and ‘TERFs’, that they can’t bring themselves to wait even a day for the facts.” That post was accompanied by a quote from police, issued shortly after Ghey’s death, stating that they were not at that stage treating the murder as a hate crime.
Campbell also repeatedly referred to Brianna using male pronouns and explicitly rejected the idea that human beings can change sex. In one exchange, responding to a tweet by Owen Jones on the subject of Ghey’s death certificate “class[ing] her as a boy”, Campbell added: “Why the f*** does it even matter what’s on the death certificate? Who cares? If their parents want to bury their child under their trans name and put it on the headstone, nobody is going to stop them. Jones is just desperate to weaponise it.”
The claimant first contacted Greater Manchester Police in February last year, highlighting what she saw as abusive and potentially unlawful tweets, and prompting officers to open a crime report. Over the following months, the force reviewed the posts and assessed whether any criminal offences had been committed under the relevant legislation. By early summer, the investigating officers had concluded that the threshold for prosecution had not been met and closed the case.
However, the claimant appears not to have received the notification of that decision. Some weeks later, she got back in touch to chase the matter, warning that the legal time limit for bringing a charge was close to expiring. Police reviewed the material again, but stood by their original conclusion: the tweets in question, while provocative, fell into the category of “hate incidents” rather than criminal offences. Unhappy with the outcome, the claimant turned to the High Court, launching a judicial review.
That challenge has now been rejected. Campbell, who was joined to the case as the Interested Party, successfully defended the police’s decision in a ruling handed down in April by Mrs Justice Hill. The court held that his comments formed part of a legitimate public debate – specifically, the framing of Ghey’s death – and that his views on biological sex were recognised as protected beliefs under equality law, following the principles set out in Forstater v CGD Europe and Higgs v Farmor’s School.
While acknowledging that the posts were made in the wake of a deeply sensitive event, the judge held that “shockingly bad taste” is not the same as illegality. Campbell’s belief that gender is biologically determined, and his refusal to use preferred pronouns, fell within the scope of protected opinion on a matter of current and controversial public interest. His posts, the judge concluded, did not come close to meeting the threshold for being “grossly offensive” under either the Malicious Communications Act or the Communications Act, particularly given the context in which they were made.
In her judgment, Mrs Justice Hill said: “The Defendant’s conclusion properly reflected society’s fundamental values of free speech, including the need for tolerance of statements and opinions that some might find offensive or upsetting.”
The court also pushed back firmly against the argument that Campbell’s tweets constituted psychological harm severe enough to engage Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibits inhuman or degrading treatment – a rare and stringent legal threshold.
Rejecting the claim as unrealistic, the judge emphasised that distress or offence caused by someone expressing protected views on matters of public concern cannot justify criminal investigation or punishment. Even if the claimant’s rights under Article 8 (private life) were engaged, the judge found, they would be outweighed by the imperative to uphold Campbell’s right to freedom of expression under Article 10.
This is a significant judgment in reaffirming that the right to express gender critical views, however ‘uncomfortable’ some may find them, remains protected under UK law. It joins a growing body of case law affirming the protected status of such beliefs. In the recent case of For Women Scotland v Scottish Ministers, the Court of Session confirmed that “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 refers to biological sex — not gender identity — reinforcing the legal legitimacy of the very belief at the heart of this case.
The FSU is proud to have supported Campbell in this case and would like to thank Roddy Dunlop KC for his representation.
The full judgment is available to read here.
