In a significant decision handed down today by Mr Justice Linden in the High Court, the case of R (Smith) v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police [2025] EWHC 1805 (Admin) has clarified the boundaries of impartiality for public bodies, with potential ramifications extending to the media sector. This judicial review challenged the participation of Northumbria Police officers, including the Chief Constable, in the Newcastle Pride 2024 event, ruling that such actions breached statutory duties of impartiality. In this post, I want to provide a structured summary of the judgment’s core issues, followed by an analysis of its relevance to news reporting, journalism, and media content production.
Summary of the Judgment
The Claimant, Lindsey Smith, a self-described gender-critical lesbian, sought a declaration that the Defendant’s authorisation of police involvement in the 2024 Pride event was unlawful. Ms. Smith argued that active participation—such as marching in uniform, displaying Progress flags (symbolising support for transgender and non-binary identities), and associating with gender ideology messaging—violated officers’ duties under provisions including the Police Regulations 2003 and the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020. These duties require officers to abstain from activities likely to interfere with impartial discharge of responsibilities or create a perception thereof.
The Court found the decisions irrational on two grounds:
- Process Irrationality: The Chief Constable’s reasoning exhibited flaws, including an error of law in subordinating impartiality to the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. The judgment emphasised that the PSED must be exercised subject to impartiality obligations, not vice versa. Additionally, the Defendant failed to adequately address the Claimant’s concerns or analyse the specific activities’ compatibility with impartiality standards.
- Outcome Irrationality: Uniformed participation objectively associated the police with contested gender ideology views, creating a perception of bias among gender-critical individuals. This fell outside the range of reasonable decisions, as no rational chief constable could authorise actions likely to undermine public confidence in neutral law enforcement.
The ruling underscores that public bodies with enforcement powers must prioritise impartiality, even when pursuing equality objectives, and proceed cautiously in engaging with ideologically charged events.
Explanation of Key Issues
At the heart of the case lies the tension between gender-critical beliefs—holding that biological sex is immutable and binary—and gender ideology, which prioritises gender identity and advocates for related policy changes (e.g., legal recognition of non-binary identities and access to single-sex spaces based on self-identification). The Court accepted evidence that Pride events, organised by entities like Northern Pride, have increasingly aligned with gender ideology, incorporating political campaigning against perceived threats to transgender rights.
The judgment drew on precedents such as Champion v Chief Constable of the Gwent Constabulary [1990] 1 WLR 1, interpreting impartiality as requiring fairness and even-handedness, free from association with partisan viewpoints. It rejected the Defendant’s reliance on policing by consent and community engagement as justifications, affirming that such goals cannot compromise core duties. Notably, the Court declined to rule on broader questions, such as off-duty participation, but highlighted the heightened scrutiny for uniformed or institutional involvement.
Relevance to News Reporting, Journalism, and Media Content Production
While the case directly concerns policing, its principles extend by analogy to regulated media sectors, where impartiality is foundational to public trust. Broadcasters and journalists operate under frameworks demanding neutral presentation of contentious issues, and this ruling may prompt re-evaluation of how equality considerations intersect with impartiality mandates.
- Implications for Broadcasting and News Reporting: Ofcom, as the statutory regulator under the Communications Act 2003, enforces “due impartiality” in news and current affairs via the Broadcasting Code (section 5). The judgment’s insistence that impartiality trumps PSED-driven actions could influence Ofcom’s adjudication of complaints involving gender-related debates. For instance, rulings requiring broadcasters to include transgender-inclusive perspectives without equivalent weight to gender-critical views might now face challenges for perceived bias. Journalists producing content on platforms like television or radio must ensure balanced coverage, avoiding institutional alignments that could mirror the police’s impugned association with Pride events.
- Journalism and Editorial Standards: The BBC’s Editorial Guidelines similarly mandate impartiality, particularly in controversial matters. This decision reinforces that media organisations cannot prioritise equality initiatives—such as diversity training aligned with gender ideology—if they risk creating perceptions of bias. Print and online journalism, though less regulated, may draw lessons for maintaining credibility, especially amid polarised debates on sex and gender.
- Media Content Production: Producers of documentaries, podcasts, or digital content should heed the ruling’s caution against activities signalling partiality. Participation in advocacy events or adoption of ideological symbols could undermine claims to objectivity, inviting audience distrust or legal scrutiny in regulated contexts.
In light of these developments, I have formally inquired with Dame Melanie Dawes, Chief Executive of Ofcom, requesting confirmation of any planned review of its impartiality duties and PSED interpretation. This inquiry emphasises Ofcom’s role as a quasi-judicial public body, bound by natural justice principles under common law and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (via the Human Rights Act 1998). I have highlighted concerns that adherence to gender ideology might constitute consideration of irrelevant matters, potentially rendering decisions Wednesbury unreasonable.
Rulings on impartiality within the Broadcasting Code, BBC Editorial Guidelines, and analogous media regulations may now require revision to explicitly prioritise impartiality over public equality concerns, ensuring regulators and content creators remain demonstrably neutral.
This High Court judgment serves as a timely reminder that impartiality is a cornerstone of public service, including in media regulation. By clarifying that equality duties cannot override neutrality, it promotes fairer engagement with divisive issues. Decentered Media will monitor responses from Ofcom and other bodies, advocating for transparent adaptations that uphold journalistic integrity. We encourage stakeholders in news reporting and content production to reflect on these principles in their practices.
Decentered Media is committed to fostering independent, balanced and accurate discourse in media and communications.
