Lindsey Smith's application for Judicial Review against Northumbria Police

If successful, this has implications that go way beyond just one police force and will force acceptance that the police cannot embrace a highly contested political ideology and expect to be trusted.

On 23rd May 2025 Hill J gave Lindsey Smith permission to bring her claim in judicial review against the Chief Constable of Northumbria Police, and ordered it be heard before this year’s Pride event, which is due to take place on 19/20 July 2025. The court hearing will be on 9/10th July.

Smith brought the legal action as she is a lesbian with ‘gender critical views’ and she asserts that Northumbria Police has previously discriminated against her. She wants the court to declare that the police force should not actively participate in Pride activities as to do so is a breach of the police’s duty to act impartially, by embracing a highly contested political ideology that seeks to elevate ‘gender identity’ in law as more important than biological sex.

The duty on the police to act impartially.

This is imposed by both statute and The College of Policing’s Code of Ethics. The police must engage with members of the public ‘without fear or favour’ . If the police cannot or will not act impartially, this has immediate corrosive consequences for public trust that the police will treat fairly people with whom they disagree. This is a matter of significant public interest, particularly given the police role in relation to freedom of speech and protest

This duty emerged from Sir Robert Peel’s notion of ‘policing by consent’ and has endured since 1829. Impartiality demands

“To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion; but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws”.

The police oath to act with impartiality is set out in Schedule 4 of the Police Act 1996 and the Standards of Professional Behaviour in Schedule 2 to The Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020. Para 1 of Schedule 1 to the Police Regulations 2003 further makes it clear that this statutory duty of impartiality applies regardless of being on or off duty. Lord Griffiths, 45 years ago in Champion v Chief Constable of the Gwent Constabulary [1990] 1 WLR 1 noted that this applied at all times and warned against the police engaging actively in politics ‘which is an overtly partisan activity in which one favours one side to the exclusion of the other’.

There is also a non-statutory Code of Ethics produced by the College of Policing in January 2024 which sets out ‘Ethical Policing Principles’ and ‘Guidance for ethical and professional behaviour in policing’. The ethical principles include challenging any activity that undermines the impartiality of policing and to treat people as individuals ‘with impartiality’. The Guidance warns against identifying with groups or individuals that might create a conflict of interest with this duty.

Persistent breach of this duty and lack of clear guidance

There have been grave concerns over the last decade that the police have persistently and consistently failed in this duty; its the reason that Fair Cop exists and explains Harry Miller’s victory against a police desire to ‘check his thinking’.

Given the importance of this issue, it is troubling to note as His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary, Fire and Rescue Services (HMICFRS) did in its report of 10th September 2024 a ‘near total absence’ of any decision by the courts about the nature and extent of this policy duty of impartiality.

The HMICFRS report’s recommendations included clarifying the impartiality duty and operational independence, and updating associated training and guidance, and introducing guidance about police attendance and conduct at events.

The report noted

Officers and staff often use visible representations as a form of communication. These representations can take the form of items such as badges, patches on uniforms, lanyards, flags, signage on police vehicles and digital badges on online profiles.

However, communication using visible representations risks misinterpretation. While one person may see a badge as a sign of support for a particular group or cause, another may see it as a sign that the wearer isn’t impartial. We found that views among the public, officers and staff about the benefits of displaying visible representations vary.

The claim in judicial review

Smith objects to the active police participation with ‘Newcastle’s Pride in the City 2024’ which was organised by Northern Pride Events. It embraced - as do all Pride events - gender identity theory which was shown by those marching chanting ‘trans liberation’ and carrying Progressive Pride flags. At the same time, The Chief Constable was marching with uniformed officers, under a Police Pride Flag. Not only were the police marching but they also had a ‘static display’ under the colours of the ‘transgender flag’ accompanied by a police van also in trans colours. Harry Miller went ‘undercover’ on the day and came back with some clear evidence of how the police seemed keen to signal their support for one side over the other.

Smith argues that this will be seen by many as going far beyond merely ‘policing’ the event - which of course is unobjectionable - and into active support for highly contested political ambitions.

To achieve ‘trans liberation’ or enforce ‘trans women are woman’ at law will require direct engagement with law and policy makers to bring into effect. That this is highly controversial is evidenced by a number of legal challenges, culminating in a Supreme Court judgment in April 2025 that determined ‘sex’ had to be interpreted as ‘biological sex’ in any statute, where failure to do so would lead to absurdity.

The Chief Constable of each force has direction and control of the activities of police officers and a statutory responsibility for providing leadership that is consistent with the duty of impartiality. Therefore Smith will argue that the Chief Constable acted unlawfully to authorise officers to endanger this duty by so fully embracing Northern Pride and its political activities. It gives a clear impression that the police would not give ‘gender critical’ demands the same treatment.

It is notable that Northern Pride were not shy in holding back in criticisms of the Supreme Court judgment, calling it ‘highly dangerous’ and declaring that anyone who didn’t support gender identity ideology would be ‘removed’ from the march.

Authorising officers to breach a statutory duty cannot be rescued by an assertion that it is necessary to give effect to their Public Sector Equality duty at section 149 of the Equality Act or in some way to atone for historical wrongs to the LGBTQ community. Encouraging a breach of statutory duty and an ethical code, is not a rational basis on which to meet even laudable aims.

It will be very interesting to see what the court does with this. A declaration in favour of Smith will of course have immediate and significant ramifications for every police force in the UK. It is sadly clearly necessary for the police to have a restatement of its obligations in the simplest possible terms. Public trust and confidence, once lost, will be difficult to regain.

I hope to be able to attend court on 9th July and will report back.