Judge upholds legal challenge to decision by chief constable to allow police officers to take part in pride event

Mr Justice Linden upheld a judicial review challenge brought by Lindsey Smith, who descried herself to the court as a lesbian who holds gender critical views, believing that a person's sex is immutable and it is wrong to recognise a person's gender identity.

The judge criticised the police response to this as “a form of ‘whataboutery’.”

Ms Smith argued that such ‘gender ideology’ has been embraced by organisers Northern Pride Events and objected to the police associating themselves with supporters of gender ideology and transgender activists.

She said police had participated in the march and had a static display with imagery indicating support for gender ideology, including displaying the ‘Progress flag’ and a police van in its colours.

Ms Smith argued that participation by serving officers, including Chief Constable Vanessa Jardine in person, was contrary to their duties of impartiality and so unlawful.

The police argued the claim was academic because a different approach would be taken at the 2025 Pride march.

Off-duty officers would be permitted to take part and though they were prohibited from wearing uniform, could wear tee-shirts which state: "The National LGBT+ Network: Police with Pride. 10th Anniversary Conference”.

There would also be a Northumbria Police stall staffed by uniformed officers on duty.

CC Jardine argued Linden J should therefore refuse to determine the claim, as it was academic.

The chief constable denied her decision in 2024 was unlawful or a breach of any officer's duty of impartiality.

In a statement of her reasons for allowing participation in 2024, CC Jardine said she was "obliged to give effect to" the public sector equality duty and set out five matters which she considered relevant.

These included that “the LGBT+ community in general and the trans community in particular are the subject of a significant number of hate crimes”, and “it is important for the police to demonstrate to potential recruits and serving officers that it will be an inclusive environment in which to serve”.

The judge said CC Jardine’s evidence did not address her own participation in the 2024 march, nor say whether she would attend the 2025 one.

It was later confirmed that CC Jardine intended to attend the 2025 march and Linden J said: ”I was not told whether she would attend in uniform but assume, if her statement is not to be regarded as misleading, that she will not wear uniform.”

Linden J said he had to decide whether the impugned activities interfered with the impartial discharge of police duties in their dealings with gender critical people.

He said: "One would expect a rational officer or decision maker to proceed with caution in deciding whether to take an active part in a public event and, in discharging their Tameside duty to make reasonable inquiries, to consider the nature of the event, and the implications of taking part in it, with care.

"They should also have firmly in mind that their own views as to what is or is not political or controversial may not necessarily be shared by all members of the public. It is easy to fall into the trap of thinking that views with which one agrees are or must be uncontroversial.”

Linden J said it was “immediately apparent that she proceeded on the basis of an error of law” because she considered the duty of impartiality was not breached because it had to be ‘read compatibly with her Equality Act duties and responsibilities’”.

He said:”The opposite is the case: the public sector equality duty has to be read subject to compliance with the duty of impartiality.

"Whilst the latter is a substantive duty of all police officers…the PSED ‘is not a duty to achieve a result…It is a duty to have due regard to the need to achieve' the goals identified in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010.

"The PSED does not, and cannot, qualify or compromise a police officer's duty of impartiality.”

Linden J said it was “matter of concern” that CC Jardine said it would be contrary to her public sector equality duty to prevent officers from attending the 2025 march.

“This appears to imply that the defendant's understanding is that the perceived beneficial aspects of participating in the 2025 march are capable of trumping or outweighing the duty of impartiality and/or that the PSED is capable of requiring her to authorise an officer to engage in activities even if this would breach their duty of impartiality…If this is her understanding, it is incorrect”, the judge said.

A letter sent by CC Jardine, which explained he stance towards the 2025 march said Ms Smith’s objection “appears to be that the event celebrates/supports the status of members of the trans community.

“You do not suggest or imply that such participation would be wrong if the event related solely to the LGB community.”

Linden J said: “The response is, instead, a form of ‘whataboutery’ in that it addresses an argument which was not being made”… as her argument was about biological or natal sex versus gender.

Linden J said was contrary to the duty of impartiality for the police to participate in the 2024 march in the way they did, because Northern Pride clearly and strongly supported gender ideology and transgender rights and those who disagreed were not welcome.

Hh said: “It is not necessary to describe this aspect of the march as ‘political' for the claimant to succeed, but that is what it was.”

The judge concluded that CC Jardine’s reasoning “did not provide a rational basis for her decision” and was “outside the range of reasonable decisions open to her.”as the march would be likely to give rise to the impression to the public that the police were not impartial.

Mark Smulian