Newman versus The Met

At the risk of sounding like Joloyon Maugham, this defeat contains a significant victory; the claim itself forced change upon the Met to recognise its previously 'unbalanced' approach to GC views.

On 25th June 2025 the Employment Tribunal handed down judgment in the case of Newman v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. It found neither of her claims, in discrimination and harassment were well founded and dismissed both. So what happened? And what implications does this have for the judicial review against Northumbria Police on July 10th?

I asked AI to provide me with an image of a Metropolitan Police officer being hostile to a woman. I am not sure it understood the assignment

Background

In September 2023 Newman brought her claim to the Employment Tribunal after being dissatisfied with her attempts to make a complaint internally. She is a Detective Constable who joined the police on 14 March 2022 and was thus relatively junior at the relevant times.

The Met did not dispute that Newman held gender critical beliefs and that these are protected by the Equality Act 2010.

The complaint centred around a live streamed event to mark Trans Day of Visibility (TDOV) on 31st March 2023, where one speaker made insulting and derogatory remarks about those with gender critical belief and a mention of Kellie-Jay Keen provoked either hissing or booing from the audience. The Tribunal distilled the list of issues simply at para 95

In essence there were two matters – did the claimant’s experience of the TDOV amount to harassment within the meaning of s26 Equality Act and, in the manner in which it treated the claimant’s complaint about TDOV, did the respondent treat her less favourably than it would have treated an officer without her protected belief, or with a different protected belief, who made a comparable complaint?

Findings of Fact

These are set out from para 9. The Tribunal is careful to note that it only made findings where it was necessary to do so, and had heard a great deal of evidence that was not relevant to the issues that required determination. All the witnesses gave ‘thoughtful and truthful’ evidence which was of great assistance.

The Tribunal found (para 15) that Newman had been exposed to earlier remarks by police officers that she considered to be misogynistic and hostile to gender critical belief. However, her argument that the Met was institutionally biased against the gender critical was not one the Tribunal could consider; such a finding ‘could only be made after a systematic inquiry in to the manner in which the respondent conducts its operations that are beyond the scope of an individual employment claim’ (para 53)

The Trans Day of Visibility Event was marketed as a ‘community event’ where speakers with ‘lived experience’ of being trans and non binary would share their stories and was an opportunity for police officers to attend and learn more. It was in part a response to the Casey Review into standards of behaviour at the Met.

Christopher Moore, the Trans Lead in the LGBT Network Staff Support Association, emailed the invitation to various contacts, who were asked to share it with other interested people. He didn’t think anyone with ‘gender critical’ views would want to attend, but they would have been welcome. He denied he had any hostility to those with gender critical views. It had not occurred to him to carry out checks on the speakers and their views and there was no policy to say he should have done.

DCS Smith gave evidence to say that at the time, such events organised by staff associations had only loose oversight and more recently the Met has introduced ‘Informed Assessment Guidelines’ and required greater scrutiny of such events. The Tribunal therefore could not say the event was ‘put on’ by the Met, but rather the staff association, which had a considerable amount of autonomy.

However, (para 20) it was very clear that the event had the support of the Met, demonstrated by the attendance of senior officers, it took place at New Scotland Yard and was widely advertised. Therefore the Met would be liable for any breach of the Equality Act in the manner in the which the event was organised.

The Tribunal found (para 21) that Newman’s attendance at the event was not compulsory, it was an educational event for interested parties. She was free to leave at any point.

Newman asserted that the speakers Eva Echo and Saba Ali were such frequent speakers at these events that they could not be considered independent of the Met. But the Tribunal did not accept this and found they were independent and external speakers, thus given a greater degree of latitude to say things that would be unacceptable if said by a police officer or Met employee. This put Newman in difficulty when she tried to raise a complaint about what she had heard, as she was repeatedly told Echo was not employed by the Met and therefore could not be considered in the scope of the grievance process.

Therefore, Eva Echo was free to say (para 23) that those who object to trans identifying men in female sports are ‘motivated by hate’, and had ‘twisted, warped views’, their concerns were a ‘moral panic’. If police were asked about women’s safety they should reply by saying that the man who murdered Sarah Everard did not have a GRC.

The Tribunal danced around a bit about whether Echo was an ‘activist’ and settled on a mealy mouthed recognition that he spoke in ‘strong terms’ and could be regarded as hostile to those holding gender critical views, not just to the views themselves.

The Tribunal accepted that the event got a positive response but found it did not follow that everyone in attendance ‘wholeheartedly approved of, condoned, or endorsed everything they heard’. It accepted that mention of Kellie-Jay Keen got a negative response from the audience but asserted it did not have ‘definitive evidence’ as to why those present reacted as they did (para 28), Newman accepting that she was a ‘controversial figure’.

The Tribunal were at least prepared to find that Newman was genuinely disturbed by this event. As she set out in her statement

I felt that the event, and in particular painting GC women as a threat to trans safety, increased the risk to anyone openly GC. It was extraordinary to me that no-one else seemed to see that'

CS Smith’s evidence concluded that he accepted there were ‘lessons to be learned’ from this event, which must meet a policing purpose (para 71) and recognise the importance of policing impartiality.

The decisions

The Tribunal were critical of Newman’s team for attempting to widen the issues beyond that with which the Tribunal needed to engage and in effect to ‘pick a side’ in the debate that forms the background to this case (para 81). The Tribunal was crystal clear that this was not its role.

The Tribunal engaged with Higgs v Farmor’s School [2025] EWCA Civ 109 and the cardinal importance of freedom of speech, as protected by article 10 ECHR. Newman and the Met disagreed as to the relevance of this. Newman’s team argued that article 10 could not be a ‘gateway’ into permitting harassment in the workplace and does not have any role in determining the proper limits of section 26 Equality Act.

The Tribunal found that it was not Christopher Moore’s intention in setting up TDOV to ‘harass’ those with gender critical belief. Eva Echo was not employed by the Met, who were not liable under s109 Equality Act for what he said. The event was not directed at the gender critical and they were not expressly invited. Therefore inviting Eva Echo did not amount to harassment.

While Newman genuinely felt offended and upset by what she heard, the Tribunal found this was not reasonable - she was not a newcomer to this debate and aware of the strong views that were likely to be expressed. The balancing exercise under article 10 was relevant to the assessment of the surrounding circumstances and ‘freedom of speech’ necessarily entails the freedom to express opinions that may shock and offend. Attendance at the event should not be conflated with an assumption that everyone attended approved of everything they heard. For Newman to conclude that the environment at the Met in general was hostile to her beliefs was a ‘sweeping conclusion’ given the small size of the event and its purpose. (para 108). Her assumptions that the Met was hostile to gender critical belief was ‘broad and unwarranted’.

The Tribunal found no direct discrimination and refused to engage with any argument about ‘institutional capture’ (para 115). It noted that the Met’s thinking about gender critical views had ‘evolved’.

Commentary

What is interesting to note is that following Newman’s complaint, the Met set out more formal guidance about the expectations around external speakers which suggests a recognition that at least some of Newman’s criticisms had force. What Eva Echo said about gender critical women was inflammatory, hateful and would not have been tolerated if it had been said about any other protected belief or religion. There was no ‘building bridges’ with the trans community or sharing ‘lived experiences’. This should not have been permitted; it is a direct breach of the Met’s public sector equality duty. As was set out in submissions on Newman’s behalf, Echo ‘demonised’ a protected belief and held it up to ‘ridicule and contempt’.

The cross examination of Newman is concerning. It was put to her that her feelings of isolation and fear are just ‘what happens’ when you hold different views from others (para 32) and she was just like an atheist in a room ‘full of Moslems’.

I find it hard to follow the Tribunal’s reasoning at para 99 - the event was not organised for the benefit of the gender critical, they weren’t expressly invited and therefore it doesn’t matter what Eva Echo said about them. Newman can’t have been surprised by what Echo said, therefore she can’t reasonably claim to have suffered from it.

I also find the analysis of article 10 at para 104 to be lacking. There appears to be no attempt to balance the necessary restrictions to article 10 as set out in 10(2) and consider that this was an event for the police, who are subject to other fundamental and important obligations, such as the duty of impartiality. The Tribunal were prepared to recognise Echo’s talk as ‘unbalanced’ but not prepared to consider the impact on that on an event to promote understanding and respect for different communities.

This suggests a fundamental lack of understanding on the part of the Tribunal and the Met about the nature of what Eva Echo was saying. He did not present mere disagreement; his speech was at best deeply unpleasant, at worst actively misogynistic, hateful and inflammatory. It would cement the views of those present that they were right to consider gender critical views were inherently wrong. Everyone was invited; any person with gender critical views at that event was likely to feel as isolated and afraid as Newman did.

As Newman said in her initial complaint about the event in April 2023

I do not feel, from what I heard of it, that this meeting would help meet the needs of trans people in London. Eva Echo portrayed an extreme, one-sided and conspiratorial view of a complex debate. In the meeting she demonised people with the protected characteristic of gender critical beliefs without challenge, presenting them in her words as “twisted” and hateful. In fact surveys of the public in England have shown no majority support for the presence of males who identify in women in female sports and facilities. World Athletics recently announced rules barring people who have gone through male puberty from certain women’s events after a careful consideration of the evidence. There is no evidence that the Government is planning anything similar to s28 for trans people. Most people do support trans people being allowed to live their lives free from harassment and unlawful discrimination as do I. However there are genuine points of conflict between women’s and trans rights that need to be worked out carefully. Eva Echo seemed to have no interest in doing that and in contrast was encouraging officers to take a political and radical stance to no challenge or encouragement from the audience.

But she was caught in a trap. The Tribunal refused to entertain any arguments about wider systemic prejudice against gender critical belief, as this was ‘outside its scope’. However, it seems reasonable to conclude that only an institution that is so systemically prejudiced would have allowed Echo to address serving police officers in such a way, and thought nothing of it.

The invitation extended to Jane Fae in February 2023 (para 54) is further evidence of the Met’s willingness to engage with very dodgy external speakers. An anonymous complainant ‘Mike’ pointed out Fae’s support for extreme pornography. Fae had to be spoken to beforehand to remind him that discriminatory and intolerant language was not acceptable. But Mike was then investigated by ACS Beehag-Fisher for ‘transphobia’ for raising concerns about Fae without ‘sufficient verification’, having a suffragette sticker on his lap top and being ‘unabashed’ at holding such disgraceful views.

Call me old fashioned, but this appears to demonstrate a very systemic hostility towards the gender critical. Indeed, the Tribunal found this certainly ‘suggested’ a tendency on the part of ACS Beehag-Fisher to regard gender critical views as ‘unacceptable and potentially discriminatory in and of themselves’ (para 59). But it’s all good as she ‘subsequently’ modified those views and it didn’t have any bearing on Newman’s complaint anyway. Happily, Mike was not ultimately disciplined and the suggestion that the sticker was ‘inherently transphobic’ was rejected.

So we are left with a situation where a hateful external speaker was invited to come to New Scotland Yard, the Met saw no problem with this but have nevertheless now tightened up their approach to external speakers. See para 71

It was clear from DCS Smith’s evidence that he concluded that there were lessons to be learned from the TDOV and his remaining recommendations addressed matters such as support to the SSAs to ensure that events meet a policing purpose, the reaffirmation of the importance of policing’s impartiality, and the use of detailed Informed Assessment Protocols that were introduced in October 2024 (pages S63 82). One objective of the protocols is to ensure that events are not automatically endorsed by the respondent and that there is informed reflection about the suitability of speakers. It is clear that that the respondent considered that there were lessons to be learned from the aftermath of the TDOV, particularly about the necessity for the police to maintain public confidence in its impartiality.

I have no doubt, from my own dealings with the police and their unlawful recordings of my protected views, that the belief that gender critical views are inherently wrong, are widespread and cemented. However, little by little they are being rooted out. This may be little comfort to Newman. I think the Tribunal were wrong not to accept that Echo’s contributions to this event were unacceptable and it was reasonable of Newman to feel that she was in a very hostile environment. Only an environment where systemic discrimination against gender critical belief is hard baked, would have permitted Echo to use this stage to preach hatred and discrimination, at an event purporting to be informative and bridge building.

Will Newman appeal? I don’t know if at this stage the game is worth the candle. The Met do at least appear to have carried out a genuine review of what went wrong and agreed that its previous laissez faire approach to external speakers was risky. It’s disappointing to note that its taken them more than two years to engage with Forstater, but pleasing at least to note that the Met appears genuine in accepting a previous ‘imbalance’. (para 113)

This is a disappointing result for Newman but I am pleased at least to see no way in which this judgment could have a negative impact on the forth coming judicial review of Northumbria. If anything, the ex post facto realisation of the Met that it needed a wee bit more oversight of its external speakers, supports my view that the penny may be finally dropping for some of our most determinedly biased public organisations. I note for example with appreciation the recognition by DCS Smith of the lessons to be learned (para 71)

Although this and other events are well intentioned some can pose a risk to public confidence by breaching or appearing to breach our duty of impartiality. This is especially true where the events can be deemed political or can attract significant local or national attention. This risk can be exacerbated by the use of New Scotland Yard or by the attendance of high ranking officers and staff.

But it was clear to the Tribunal (para 72) that the Met were only prepared to realise the significance of Newman’s complaints after she began the tribunal proceedings. Therefore Newman lost this hearing, but won nevertheless a significant victory. the recognition of the Police SEEN network is a very visible example of genuine change.

The Tribunal explicitly recognise this at para 120

At the same time, it would appear that the claimant’s claim has contributed to substantial changes in the manner in which the respondent accommodates gender critical beliefs and a review of the way in which it engages with external speakers across a broad spectrum of issues.

This judgment is a welcome sign that at least some forces are inching back to their fundamental duty of impartiality. Lets hope the judicial review of Northumbria is the final kick up the arse for those more recalcitrant forces.