The police have a duty to be impartial

Cross-posted on Sarah Phillimore’s Substack: The police have a duty to be impartial

On June 8 2026 I was able to attend the first half the permission hearing in my application to judicially review the decision of Wiltshire Police in what I alleged was active support of a contested political ideology, in breach of their statutory duty of impartiality. Wiltshire Police of course took a different view and I was tantalisingly exposed to at least the introduction of their position before lunch, which I will discuss in more detail below. I am pleased to say that permission has been granted to proceed to a substantive hearing.

We have been here before. Linzi Smith took Northumbria Police to court and won, in R (Smith) v Chief Constable of Northumbria [2025] EWHC 1805, Linden J deciding that marching under the Progress Pride flag was very clear breach of the police’s statutory duty of impartiality. Kathleen Stock gave evidence for Linzi and also in the my case to explain why Pride is political

Professor Stock (as she was then) noted in Linzi’s case 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).

As Harry Miller noted in his witness statement regarding Northumbria police activities

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.”

The decision of court was clear – the requirements on the police as to impartiality are fundamental. ‘Intrusive state powers are vested in them on the basis that these powers will be exercised impartially’ (para 104 judgment)

So why are we here?

My challenge is to the participation of Wiltshire Police in the activities of Swindon and Wiltshire Pride on 9 August 2025. The Chief Constable not only authorised those activities but took part, in uniform. The activities included sponsorship of the Event, the Chief Constable wearing a Progress Pride badge and a stall run by members of the Force wearing identifying T shirts and Progress Pride flags.

It is my view, supported by the Smith decision that this is demonstrating support for a hotly contested matter of political controversy, namely gender ideology. The precise nature of the activities in my case are different but point to the same breach of statutory duty. My solicitors wrote before the Pride Event, pointing out the Smith judgment and asked for reassurance that police officers would not participate. The police did not respond until after the event and made it clear they considered their behaviour perfectly lawful and it would be repeated next year.

A further interesting development occurred after I issued my claim against them and this was publication on 30 April 2026 of the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) guidance on participation at publicly arranged community events. This guidance among other things, tells officers attending such events not to wear any ‘visible symbols (e.g. flags, badges and pins) that could reasonably be interpreted as expressing support for a political party, campaign or policy change’

So, while waiting for the permission hearing to start, you will forgive me for feeling confident. However, we were listed for four hours, which is slightly disconcerting as I cannot see what there is to discuss, certainly following the NPCC guidance. I will ask for permission to ‘live tweet’ and hope it is granted!

At 9.55am Lynsay Watson sent an email to the court asking it to ‘take into account’ my wider activities which demonstrated ‘hostility’ to LBG and transgender issues, including calling the police ‘paedophiles’. This is, of course, denied. Both barristers agreed that this material should not be considered and it was not sent to either. The Judge is aware of who Lynsay Watson is as they have met in other proceedings. He had not seen the material. It was not admitted.

With regard to live tweeting, the Judge would be ‘happier’ if live tweeting didn’t occur as one person’s fact might be someone else’s broadcasting. There is an element of risk associated with that which might be embarrassing. He would not prohibit it but would discourage it. I respect the Judge’s observations and provide note of submissions below.

Commentary

I am very glad I was able to hear even part of Wiltshire’s submissions in their defence. They confirm what I have long suspected and feared; that the drive to be ‘inclusive’ overrides all other considerations, even statutory duties, and this ‘inclusivity’ applies to only certain groups. The claim was in effect that the police had to wear Progress Pride badges to show their support for a uniquely marginalised community and this was part of the police duty to protect them from hate crimes and show that the police were part of the community.

Wiltshire put its duty in these terms and I am troubled by it Absolutely at the core of Wiltshire obligations that it investigates hate crimes with trans gender element and pursues perpetrators. The duty is surely not to elevate investigation of crimes against trans gender people above all others, but to treat any crime motivated by hatred for that trans gender identity as worthy of a higher sentence on conviction. If there is a hierarchy of crimes that are investigated then this needs to be made very clear to the public, along with how that hierarchy is established and what is its lawful basis.

I am baffled by this argument. I made it clear to my barrister that I had no objection to the police attending community events, having a stall at any Pride event, handing out leaflets about reporting crime or victim support etc. But that I had visceral objection to them doing so while wearing the colours of ANY political or religious group. It is inconceivable for e.g. that the police would ever turn up to an event waving a suffragette flag, and nor would I want them to. The police must operate without fear or favour; they are for ALL the communities, not just the ones with colourful flags.

I was also concerned by some of the interjections from the Judge – for example, his comment that maybe this case was more about police impartiality than the pros and cons of gender ideology. I found that an odd remark. As my barrister replied, it was made clear in Smith that the merits of gender critical versus gender identity were no part of the court’s remit. The issue was whether or not the police were supporting, or giving the impression that they supported, any political ideology, not whether I – or the court – viewed this ideology favourably or not.

The Judge further commented that in effect he couldn’t see the point of this hearing – there was guidance in Smith already. Was this the best use of court resources? Well, er yes. The issue before the court was that I was claiming Wiltshire was ignoring both Smith and the NPCC guidance, this was unlawful and it was exactly the duty of the court to adjudicate on this.

Given that we have permission no doubt these arguments will be ventilated more fully in the substantive hearing and I hope I can be there. I set out my running note of the submissions below.

Court submissions

Tom Cross KC opens submissions. It is clear that permission hearings are not designed to be lengthy. This claim is plainly arguable. These are hotly contested matters re gender and the Pride event positively promotes this. The police had a stall. The organisers had a march during the first hour. Wrong on the facts to present ‘the march’ (as the defendant seeks to do) as something separate from the event. Further the police sponsored the entire event, including the march as a Pride Partner. The financial support of sponsors was necessary for the event to happen. In participating in park activities, officers identifying themselves as officers, either through uniform or T shirts, wore or embraced the Progress colours and associated with the Pride movement, notwithstanding the significance of those colours for such as my client who hold ‘gender critical’ belief. No disclosure of any decision making document to show that the Chief Constable identified with the questions Linden J said should be addressed – and it appears it does not exist.

The facts

This is not an exercise in comparing and contrasting what happened in Smith. Each case falls to be considered on own facts. But if that were the task, the facts for the Claimant here are stronger. The Chief Constable in Northumbria did not wear the Progress Pride flag on her uniform!

Judge – there are things I need to refine in my own mind. Acronym describing what Pride is about starts with LGB – that isn’t at the heart of your client’s concerns, its when we get further down to the element which is contested. Is there a practical issue for consideration, the Chief Constable wants to show positive approach to inclusivity but finds the police involved in a highly contested political and social question. Are there two things going on at a Pride March, which together cause some difficulty? What is happening on the ground?

TC KC states he will go with some precision to explain what happened on the ground, and the impression those activities gave. It is important to be precise about what activities are relied on, which we are in para 30 of our facts and grounds. Court is only deciding the permission stage on the particular facts of this case and activities in context. Context is not any old organiser of any old event. This event organised by those who espouse highly contested positions – see that in the Pride Support Guide highlighted in the witness statement. Judge knows the witness statements fairly well.

Going to the Support Guide at p96 in bundle. Produced by organisers – eliminate discrimination on basis of gender identity. Professor Stock’s witness statement explains that reference to gender identity goes beyond the protected characteristics of the Equality Act and is a firmly contested by gender critical people. This organisation understands sexual orientation under a concept of sex which is not biological. This position is at the heart of the heated public debate in these matters. Page 99 of the guidance ‘why is Swindon Pride so important’ – invites Judge to read all the page.

This is explicitly political – Pride is a protest, the fight is far from over, if you think this is just a party you are wrong. Adopt Pro Palestinian position and ‘Kill the Bill’ re limitations to protest. The activities in the park are expressly identified with the political campaign which is what makes the event as a whole so important – it is much more than the march. The defendant claims you should not associate the march with the park activities, but that is not how the organisers present them. They are not separate events. The Pride Event includes the march.

Invites the Judge to read further ‘what is the history of protest at Pride’ and how Pride is commercialised. Judge notes middle column page 21 – pride is moving away from its protest routes and becoming a party. Is that a political party? No, replies TC KC its a celebration. But the point they are making is don’t let it! Don’t let the fun and commercialisation mask what Pride is really for, which is radical change.

The guide endorses policy positions which are contested. For e.g. pg 109 – tips to promote gender equality in the classroom, using gender neutral language, approach to affirmation of trans identifying child. There is a huge debate about this, in the courts, as to whether that is the right thing to do. The GenderBread person appears! That I have read, says the Judge. Return to Kathleen Stock witness statement. She is Miss Stock as when she left the University the title of Professor did not go with her. She explains why this is contested.

What is this force’s approach to this event? It is to sponsor it! Publicises with the police logo its status as ‘Pride partner’. Officers weren’t simply turning up to an event with which they were unconnected, to take advantage of some kind of community engagement – they were there as Pride Partner.

What does this mean? Guide says pride partners have space in the park. They help keep Swindon Pride free to attend, you will find them in prominent locations in different parts of the park. Defence mischaracterise this as ‘park event’ separate from march. Police haven’t told us how much they spent. Made FOI request exhibited to Miss P’s statement – spending on ‘fuzzy bugs’ and pens. In 2024 £1K spent on sponsorship, we have no figure for 2025 but gives Judge an idea.

Final bit of the facts is the significance of the Progress colours. Judge says he has read it very carefully and he doesn’t understand our evidence in this respect to be disputed. He has seen the photographs exhibited to Miss P’s statement. The Chief Constable as leader of the force, wearing the colours on top of her uniform and posing for photographs in front of the colours. At least one other officer in uniform wearing both Progress and Trans colours.

Judge – on the right Chief Constable and on the left the officer wearing Progress and Trans colours. Judge notes CC not wearing trans colours. TC KC points out significance of the Progress flag and distinction between the rainbow flag. This ‘brings in trans’. Very helpful, says the Judge.

The officers who man the stall are not in uniform and are said to be off duty but wore the colours on specially designed clothing associating with the Pride movement and its colours. One officer is wrapped in the colours. Progress colours also on lanyards worn by officers on the stall. Evidence as to what these colours mean to ‘gender critical’ people. It was accepted in Smith that there are a sufficient number of GC people for the duty of impartiality to be engaged in this context. Para108 vi of Smith judgment. The colours are very firmly associated with this event in the Support Guide.

The Smith case

It should not be assumed that because officers don’t march, they aren’t in breach. The argument about the march did take up most of the time in Smith but a number of specific activities in Smith case relied on are materially the same here. Static stall, displaying imagery, judge recognising ‘in addition to marching’. Separate activities and emphasising the importance of being clear about what activities are criticised. Discussion in Smith as to whether it was appropriate to criticise officers who were not identified as police taking place in a march. This is a distraction, not an issue in this case. We say the sponsorship in this case more concerning.

Smith set out the law re statutory impartiality – Judge has read this with great care. Para 103 of judgment. Judge – thrust of judgment is by reason of statute the force is to be very, very careful about its impartiality duties both as to impression and as to reality. That is the essence. TC KC agrees – it is the theme throughout. Understanding how statutory and regulatory duties fit together.

Judge -is it possible to look at this case as being rather less to do with gender ideology debate and its a case about impartiality. TC KC – it is not part of my case to be concerned with merits of the underlying debate. It is absolutely no concern of the court. That is expressly said by Linden J.

Judge – in context of relatively recent guidance post dating the matters your client complains about. If there had been compliance with guidance, is it likely that your client would have been content. TC KC – that would depend.

Judge – strikes me that things have moved on, perhaps in response to Smith. I am interested in where this goes if another Smith like judgment, particularly in context of new guidance. It’s a discretionary point.

TC KC – Swindon Pride not until August 2026. After the NPCC guidance came out we wrote to the Defendant to invite them to concede that decisions re last years event were unlawful and to say that as a result of the NPCC guidance, they should not adopt the same approach in 2026. The position of the force remains as of the 1 June 2026, they don’t agree that 2025 was unlawful, even with the guidance. That is why it is important to establish that what they did in 2025 was unlawful and to ensure they take the guidance into account for 2026. In respect of 2026 this force remains a sponsor. They are not accepting what they did in 2025 was unlawful; they claim the opposite.

Judge – I am glad you introduce that point as it goes to the usefulness of these proceedings. In the event that 2026 event was set up in materially different way I would be concerned about use of the court’s resources. I am not considering if its academic, its more subtle because the Smith judgment provides a significant degree of guidance on facts that are not a million miles away from facts here and a proliferation of judgments and guidance is likely to dilute effectiveness and I don’t want to see proliferation of litigation. That’s why I am interested.

TCKC that is why we wrote to the Defendant. We don’t want to spend money to come to court to ventilate argument if position is clear. The problem with have is notwithstanding Smith and NCPCC guidance you have a force saying that what we did last year is fine. No concession that they couldn’t do it again. If this case doesn’t go forward, the opportunity is lost to clarify their positive assertion that what they did in 2025 was lawful.

Judge – have parties discussed how the police could promote community event to support inclusivity in a way that doesn’t court controversy. TC KC – no. Do have to look at all the circumstances of the case. Risk that the activity may interfere with the duty of impartiality and give rise to impression that it may interfere.

Grounds

Judge you can take them very quickly, I have looked very carefully at those. We wrote to Chief Constable to ask what she is going to do. Key articulation of client’s position. Written as pre action protocol letter and there was no response prior to the event or indeed for a couple of months. Goes to your Lordships point above about discussions.

Any documentary evidence of consideration by Chief Constable – absolutely none. One document as as result of FOI request. From What Do They Know website. Questions 2 and 3, captures any correspondence showing CC’s engagement with issues set out by Linden J. A series of statements.

One made by senior officer prior to Pride Event and Judge invited to read it as important. It starts ‘unapologetic about remaining a sponsor’ as supports all communities – but not GC community who absolutely do object. Refers to Smith and mischaracterises it as challenge to marching by officers not in uniform. It recognises political nature of Northern Pride but makes no reference to plainly political nature of Swindon Pride. A decision is described, but we don’t know who made it. The document does not accurately describe what the Chief Constable allowed. It is plain that those in uniform did not limit themselves to policing event but posed for photographs wearing or in front of Pride colours. What happened is the CC permitted attendance as Pride Partner and in such a way that associated identifiable officers with the Pride Colours and with Pride. That is the only evidence we have of the decision.

Looking at process irrationality, the CC does not appear to have identified the actual activities permitted, they are not accurately nor adequately described, despite the emphasis placed on need to consider specific activities by Linden J and not the slightest consideration of the context of the activities permitted to assess if they were in breach. No consideration of the contested belief/policy of organiser or that the Force could be reasonably seen as associating with them. Not the slightest consideration of the significance of the colours prominently worn by CC herself and by officers identified as such manning the stall, despite significance of colours as explained by Smith case. No evidence that CC has engaged in any consideration of the impression that participating in the event in this way would be likely to have on people like Miss P and Miss Stock and the others who share their viewpoint.

Only one other document from Wiltshire about CC decision making process. It is written in the passive and does not indicate that questions required by Linden J were asked. It does not come close to the mark. I understand Wiltshire’s defence is based on this letter. Defence does not come close to meeting the case. It does not reflect what letter actually says. It does not say that anyone, let alone the CC asked the question if impression given of interference with duties. It identifies a community event and a stall and asserts it was lawful, post facto and that’s it.

Apart from disparity between letter and defence, there is no reference to the CC answering the questions in Smith. That’s it. That’s the defence. It is not merely not a ‘knock out blow’ but our claim seems bound to succeed on process irrationality.

Grounds 2 and 3 ultra vires. Linden J says its a respectable argument – Judge agrees. Defence agrees – in principle, if actions of Wiltshire police breach duty of impartiality, it follows it was ultra vires. If I succeed on ultra vires, no need to consider outcome irrationality analysis. You are simply asking for today, has the Defendant provided a ‘knock out blow’ to say police so obviously not in breach. Very amply they were arguably in breach.

Conclusion

Drawing together submissions, the contested belief of Pride organisers and park events seen as a whole, the police were a Pride partner and sponsored event as a whole and given prominent position in the park, the significance of the Progress colours for GC people, made very clear in Smith.

Wiltshire Police Defence

Section 66 of the Sentencing Act 2020 – hostility, offence aggravated by hostility related to trans gender identity. Absolutely at the core of Wiltshire obligations that it investigates hate crimes with trans gender element and pursues perpetrators. Requires Wiltshire to gain and maintain the trust of that community and all in that Act. That 2020 Act dovetails nicely with earlier decision and observation of the Supreme Court – Lord Griffiths states there are great dangers in isolating the police from the community and every encouragement should be given to police officers to play part in life of the community in which they live.

Have to start any consideration of challenge to lawfulness of CC activities by looking at difficult and nuanced question – in seeking to engage with all elements of community, including GC and trans, the CC has to demonstrate that she and her officers are able to police fairly both those communities and do so impartially but taking into account the specific obligations to investigate and police hate crime and maintain the trust of those communities who are potential victims of hate crime.

The extent to which the trans community is the victim of hate crime, bullying and discrimination. That is community CC lent her support to. inevitable because of nature of the hotly contested debate, if the CC is going to demonstrate any support at all for that community as she must – that will raise concerns on part of GC community. It is very clear just how far Miss P and Miss Stock wish to go. Look at statement of Miss Stock who observes – for me the sight of Wiltshire police associating with obviously political and contested material… using or encouraging the use of Pride or Progress flags.. or other symbols in publicly facing way’

It is absolutely clear, what Miss P and Miss Stock wish to stop, is the visual demonstration at any level by Wiltshire police for the LGBTQI community. We know this is the position as Miss Stock goes on to say that force will favour GI over GC and be partisan over managing conflicts. So if Miss Stock sees a lanyard that is enough for her to conclude lack of impartially.

Judge – is this really about support. Is part of this case founded in what you both mean about support? Do you mean in the context of understanding how a particular community feels threatened and making it clear the force is there to address any offending or is support something that is involves wearing colours that associates the force with a particular side of the debate?

Does the degree of support shown by Wiltshire for LGBTQIA indicate a corresponding lack of support for opposing side? In essence, nothing before you gives an objective observer any concern that Wiltshire support in demonstrating support for one side is demonstrating it could not be impartial between the two bodies. That may be what Miss P says. But you have to have an objective basis, not just I disagree passionately with the views of the people who wear these flags.

Judge – will resume at 2pm. Practical issue here to resolve so do use the time if you can.