Gender Wars: The Police must not take sides
Linzi Smith has won a considerable victory against the wholesale abandonment by the Northumbrian police of their crucial duty of impartiality - so what now?
Summary
The court found participation by Northumbria Police in the 2024 Pride Event was contrary to the uniformed officers’ duty of impartiality as it would have clearly given the impression to members of the public that it may interfere with their ability to discharge their duties impartially. This conclusion is even stronger when considering that the Chief Constable ‘led the contingent’. As far as gender critical people were concerned, this force was taking sides. And this is unlawful.
I wrote about Linzi’s judicial review here, setting out the fundamental importance of the statutory duty of police impartiality and how she argued Northumbria police were in breach for their enthusiastic endorsement of a contested and controversial political ideology at last years Pride. The hearing and the judgment were expedited, as Northumbria were proposing to engage in this year’s Pride celebrations on July 25th.
We got the judgment today, July 16 2025. Linzi won. It’s a fantastic achievement and will have considerable consequences for all police forces who still think that having police cars and riot shields in the colour of the trans flag is a massive PR coup.
I asked Grok to give me an image of a morose police man waving a Progress Pride flag and sadly this was the best it could do
The judgment
The judgment sets out the background to the application from para 2. Linzi accepted that the Pride Event needed to be policed but her objection was to Northumbria police actively participating in the event and thereby associating themselves with ‘supporters of gender ideology and transgender activists’.
The police took a dismissive response, asserting her claim was ‘academic’ because they would do things differently this year - they wouldn’t wear a uniform and won’t wear Pride insignia at their stall. If the court disagreed, well, they hadn’t done anything wrong because it didn’t breach the duty of impartiality and it was perfectly rational for the Chief Constable to authorise participation in and support for the Pride Event.
The court made it clear (para 7) that it was deciding only if the decisions made about the 2024 event were lawful - but obviously the Chief Constable would need to consider the implications of the court decision for how she permitted participation in 2025. Also the court did not need to express any view on the rights or wrongs of any competing view and would not do so.
Interestingly (para 7(v)) the court noted that Northern Pride, who organised the Event did not attempt to join the proceedings as an interested party and they provided no evidence. It seems that the police didn’t even contact them.
Linzi relied on a witness statement from Professor Kathleen Stock who provided a ‘clear and succinct’ explanation of ‘gender ideology’ on which the court relied (para 9)
…the tenets of gender ideology as being that each person has a gender identity which may or may not match the biological sex which is assigned to them at birth. These are trans or transgender people. People who espouse gender ideology believe that it is a person’s gender identity, rather than their biological sex, which makes them a man or a woman, or gender non-binary. They believe that gender identity, rather than biological sex, is what should be recognised and protected in law and social policy.
Pride is Political
The court had an abundance of evidence before it to show that the Pride Event was political.
Professor Stock noted that ‘a significant part of the activities of the Pride movement are political’ (para 12) and most or many Pride organisations have become strongly committed to gender ideology and its policy objectives. They generally hold ‘gender critical’ views (the belief that sex is real and it matters) to be unacceptable and are hostile to them.
The flag of this movement is the ‘Progress Pride’ flag which she argued conveys ‘more than generalised support for trans people; it conveys support for gender ideology’ (para 16).
Northern Pride Events Limited identifies itself as a ‘LGBTQIA+ charity’ and its aims include ‘the elimination of discrimination of the grounds of ‘gender identity and expression’ (para 17). It expressed itself as ‘deeply disappointed’ by the Supreme Court ruling that confirmed the protected characteristic of sex means biological sex (para 22). Its Director Ste Dunn gave training to Northumbria police in February 2025 where he said ‘…we try to always remember that Pride is still a political movement’ (para 24).
Northern Pride made a public statement in 2025 to say that any individual who did not support their values will be asked to leave the Pride Event ‘and, in some cases, removed’ (para 25). The court accepted that this warning was directed against ‘TERFS’ who express views that Northern Pride find transphobic, i.e. the exclusion of men from women’s spaces.
Harry Miller also provided a statement about the public support for the Northern Pride Event by the Northumbria Police - again the court had the benefit of an embarrassing wealth of public statements by the police declaring ‘We are Proud to Support Pride’ (para 27) and wrongly including ‘gender identity or expression’ as a protected characteristic (para 30).
Linzi sent a letter before action on 4th June 2024, asking the police to stop taking part in activities which gives the public the impression that they support gender ideology. The police replied on 18th June to say that the Chief Constable considered participation in the Pride Event to be a lawful exercise of her discretion (para 33) and part of her Public Sector Equality Duty. The police needed to demonstrate to the public that they offer an ‘inclusive environment’. By attending the Pride Event the police were ‘celebrating the individuality and dignity of members of that community’ (para 37).
Harry and Linzi go to Pride!
Both Harry and Linzi attended the 2024 Pride Event and march, and the police didn’t contest what they saw and documented. The crowd included protesters with the Progressive Pride flag and a contingent of uniformed officers, led by the Chief Constable (para 44). The court cites Harry’s statement at para 45
The Chief Constable marched in the immediate proximity of those carrying the flags and emblems clearly associated with the gender ideologists' cause. Trans women Are Women, Trans Rights Are Human Rights, the intersectional flag and the blue, pink and white transgender pride flag signalled to me (and I believe would signal to anyone or certainly many people, including gender critical people) a political association in a similar way to how someone shouting "Build A Wall" or "Make America Great Again" signals an association with Donald Trump.”
There was also a ‘static display’ including a Police van with the colours of the trans flag on its sides.
As Professor Stock said (para 48)
“For me, the sight of the Northumbria Police either participating in Pride marches, supporting Pride events in public statements, or using or encouraging the use of Progress or rainbow flags, emblems, lanyards or other symbols associated with trans causes in a public-facing way, conveys its support for gender ideology. If that is not the Force's intention it is certainly its effect.
The Chief Constable fails to address the evidence
Her witness statement did not directly explain or justify her decisions in relation to the 2024 Event (para 49). She did not address the publicly available material about Northern Pride and its political aim. She is willing to accept it’s ‘possible’ that some participants hold controversial views about transgender rights; the court noted she could not have any real doubt about this after reading Linzi’s statement.
She relies on Pride being simply a ‘joyous celebration’ (para 53), ignoring a wealth of evidence of an overall consensus of support for transgender rights as part of the wider agenda. As the Event is not explicitly aligned to any political party, it cannot be political. As the court noted (para 54) ‘this does not really address the Claimant’s perspective or her evidence’
Therefore it is the Chief Constable’s case that its just not a problem for the police to be there, in fact its a positive thing, to build trust and community engagement.
It’s then rather odd then that given this glowing endorsement of an entirely unpolitical and joyous celebration that she then has a change of approach for the 2025 March and decides that officers can’t now attend in uniform. This is blamed on ‘evolving social attitudes’ (para 58) but she can’t say what those are. She will attend the 2025 March (but presumably not in uniform!)
The legal framework and the decision
The court sets out from para 61 - 72 the duty of impartiality imposed on the police. It considers the Public Sector Equality Duty at para 73.
The police argued Linzi’s claim should be chucked out as ‘academic’ - i.e. they were going to do things differently this year, even though there was nothing wrong with what they did in 2024, o dear me no. Linzi disagreed, saying the court needed to clarify the position for the future, as Pride is an annual event. The court also disagreed -even if the claim were academic, it should be determined (para 83). Linzi was entitled to a declaration if the police were found to have acted unlawfully. The issues she raised are ones of significant public interest. The court said at para 89
The issues raised by the Claim are important, current, controversial and of public interest. This hardly needs to be explained further but the case concerns the application of the duty of impartiality owed by police officers and the role of the chief officer of a police force in this regard in the context of community engagement and/or promoting diversity. It also concerns the role of the PSED in decision-making about these issues, and the questions arise in relation to highly contested views about sex and gender which are a matter of active public debate.
The court further noted the concerns of the September 2024 report of HMICFRS about the ‘near-total absence of any definition, guidance or judicial consideration of impartiality insofar as it relates to policing’ and the inconsistent approach to participation in such events by various forces. HMICFRS had asked the NPCC to publish national guidance about this but rather pathetically the NPCC told the court that it didn’t even have a draft guidance to offer by July 2025.
The court commented
Finally, it does seem to me to be unattractive for a person, such as the Defendant, holding high public office and with responsibility for law enforcement, to argue that her decision should not be subject to any scrutiny at all by the Court in a case such as the present. Serious concerns have been raised by the Claimant about the Defendant’s decision-making and about her understanding and application of the law in relation to a fundamental duty of police officers, the duty of impartiality, in the context of an ongoing and highly contested public debate. It would be one thing if she had accepted that she was in error in relation to the 2024 Event and conceded the Claim, but she has made no concessions and, indeed, Mr Waite continued to argue that the Claimant’s case “made no sense” despite the fact that Hill J had held that it has sufficient merit for permission to be granted. The Defendant’s attempt to keep her options open, and to avoid legal challenge at the same time, has a tactical flavour which does not seem entirely consistent with the public interest.
The merits
The court considered the legal basis for judicial review from para 90 - did the Chief Constable act irrationally? Linzi argued that no reasonable Chief Constable could have concluded that participation in the Pride Event was consistent with the officers’ duties - this is ‘outcome irrationality’. Her letter in response to Linzi of 18th June also demonstrated ‘process irrationality’ in that she failed to provide a rational basis for her decision and misunderstood the PSED.
The court set out its ‘rationality analysis’ from para 102. It recognised the fundamental importance and significance of the duty of impartiality - that the power of the police to fulfil their functions and duties is dependent on public approval and their ability to secure and maintain public respect. The duty applies at all times. It is an ‘exacting standard’ which encourages officers and decision makers to be cautious about the activities which they undertake or authorise.
In her statutory role as Chief Constable, she has an express responsibility to lead the force and ensure it acts with impartiality (para 109). She should have made reasonable inquiries into the nature of the event and the implications of taking part in it. She made a serious error in considering the duty of impartiality was not breached because it had to be read subject to compliance with the Public Sector Equality Duty. In fact the opposite is true - the PSED was subject to the duty of impartiality (para 113). This misunderstanding continued to infect the Chief Constable’s approach to the 2025 event. Her reasoning barely addresses Linzi’s arguments.
Sadly, it seemed that neither the police nor the court appreciated that Linzi’s team was arguing about not just uniformed officers. The court felt this was a much wider argument and the court had heard no submissions from individuals or organisations about forbidding any serving officer from attending, even in a personal capacity (para 128). This might be an argument for another day.
The court therefore confined its decision to uniformed officers and concluded (para 130) that participation in the March 2024 Event was contrary to the uniformed officers’ duty of impartiality as it would have clearly given the impression to members of the public that it may interfere with their ability to discharge their duties impartially. This conclusion is even stronger when considering that the Chief Constable ‘led the contingent’. As far as gender critical people were concerned, this force was taking sides.
Commentary
The Chief Constable could not recognise the fundamental importance of the duty of impartiality but the court did (para 104)
Nevertheless, even in the context of a rationality challenge, it is important to note that the requirements on a police officer, including the Defendant, as to impartiality are fundamental. Intrusive state powers are vested in them on the basis that those powers will be exercised impartially
The police made the same argument as was put forward in Melanie Newman’s case; we don’t accept we did anything wrong, but anyway we have now stopped doing it. Fortunately this Judge was having none of it (para 121)
Mr Waite’s connected argument that, in effect, she is now aware of (largely unspecified) considerations of which she was not aware in 2024, and that her understanding as at 13 June 2025 should be taken into account in considering the lawfulness of her decisions of a year before is, with respect, illogical and unconvincing. If he or she are to be taken as saying that the Defendant was not aware of key considerations which were relevant to her decision and which caused her to change her approach – the views of Northern Pride, the nature of the proposed 2024 March or the views of gender critical people, for example – this is a further indication that her 2024 decision-making was irrational.
This decision is hugely significant. It identifies a very worrying misunderstanding of the law by Northumbria police - that the PSED overrode their duty of impartiality. One wonders who was advising this force. Presumably this erroneous thinking infects many forces and other organisations. It’s time to root it out.
The PSED, as the court notes at para 113, is not a ‘duty to achieve a result’. Its a duty to have ‘due regard’ to the need to achieve the goals set out in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. It cannot qualify or compromise a police officer’s duty of impartiality. The PSED cannot make unlawful acts, lawful.
It’s a shame that due to the rushed nature of the proceedings that neither the Court nor the Chief Constable realised that Linzi wanted to examine the participation of officers not in uniform - but I agree with the Judge that this raises all sorts of questions about the individual rights of those officers, who of course are allowed some kind of personal life. So this will be a question for another day. I can see an argument the police should be allowed to attend such events as long as they weren’t identifying themselves as police officers and weren’t getting involved in the more extreme and hostile elements of these events.
The real significance of this decision is that the whole clown show of performative inclusivity has been given a proper judicial kicking. This lazy, ill informed assumption that its ‘job done’ if you wave a flag and go on a march, this ignorance of or contempt for the different views of other equally important members of society must now be rooted out, not only from the police but every other public body. No organisation funded by the taxpayer should ever be allowed to give the impression that it ‘takes a side’ in hugely controversial and contested issues - which gender identity certainly is.
This matters for every organisation but its a particularly dangerous failing for the police. They have the power to arrest and detain. If they are going to be dancing monkeys for one contested ideology, then they need to dance for all - or, and by far a better idea, none at all. Do your job, without fear or favour. That is how you win the trust of various communities. Because we can trust you not to judge us, to offer us equal protections, that you leave your political and religious affiliations at home. That we won’t see you smiling next to a placard that says ‘Terfs and racists - be afraid’
Huge congratulations to Linzi and her legal team for their dedication and their success. This is a fantastic note on which to end Harry’s mammoth commitment to Fair Cop. I am very proud of his achievements and to bask a little in this reflected glory. I will always be grateful that he took the time to call me in June 2019 to ask if I fancied throwing my hat in this ring. I don’t think there is anything I have done with my life of which I will be more proud; that I stood up for the rule of law and the protection it offers us all.
This must now cement the beginning of the end for the corrosive influence of gender identity ideology. A vindication for LawFare and a reminder of the need for eternal vigilance.