Court ruling affirms free speech rights

On April 16, 2025, the High Court of Justice delivered a pivotal ruling amidst ongoing debates surrounding freedom of speech and social media conduct in the case of Lynsay Watson, R (on the application of) v The Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police [2025] EWHC 954 (Admin). This decision arose from Watson’s complaint about political commentator Stuart Campbell's posts on Twitter, made in the wake of the tragic murder of Brianna Ghey, a transgender girl, which she deemed as derogatory and harmful.

The dispute began when Watson sought legal action after Greater Manchester Police opted not to investigate Campbell's online remarks, arguing they constituted harassment and malicious communications. Campbell's comments, perceived by Watson and many others as deeply offensive, raised significant questions regarding the intersection of online discourse and legal accountability.

Presided over by Mrs Justice Hill, the court examined the rationale behind Inspector Paul Mason’s decision that Campbell’s posts lacked sufficient grounds for prosecution under the Malicious Communications Act 1988 or other laws. The defence argued that Campbell's remarks, although distasteful, fell under the protection of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, highlighting the necessity of defending freedom of expression even when it offends certain groups.

Watson's representatives contended that the failure of the police to act on Campbell's posts neglected the potential harm posed to the transgender community. They emphasised that online harassment has tangible effects, which should compel a more proactive response from law enforcement agencies.

Conversely, the police maintained that Campbell's comments, while provocative, did not meet the established threshold of 'grossly offensive' required for criminal charges, referencing the precedent set in R (Miller) v College of Policing [2020] EWHC 225. They reiterated that free expression must be safeguarded even if it disturbs certain individuals, as long as it does not incite violence or hatred.

In delivering her judgment, Mrs Justice Hill intricately explored the tension between free expression and individuals’ rights to dignity and respect. Despite the sensitive context of Campbell's comments, she noted that for a criminality finding, there must be clear evidence of intent to harm, which was absent in this case.

Ultimately, the court dismissed Watson's claim, reinforcing the notion that expressions of opinion, particularly those rooted in public controversy, deserve significant tolerance in a democratic society. This ruling is poised to set a precedent for future legal cases navigating the complexities of online speech and the protections afforded to those experiencing social media harassment. The case exemplifies the ongoing challenges faced by both law enforcement and the judiciary as they attempt to manage the intricacies of modern expression amid sensitive social issues

Copyright & permissions