LEEDS COMBINED COURT CENTRE
Before :
MR JUSTICE LINDEN
1. This is a claim for judicial review of the decision of the Defendant to authorise officers of the Northumbria Police Force (“the Force”) actively to participate in the “Newcastle Pride in the City 2024” event (“the 2024 Event”) on 20 July 2024, in which she also participated. Permission was granted by Hill J on 23 May 2025. She also ordered that the hearing of the Claim be expedited so that, if possible, a judgment would be promulgated before “Newcastle Pride in the City 2025” which is due to take place on the weekend of 19/20 July 2025 (“the 2025 Event”).
2. The Claimant describes herself as a lesbian who is “gender critical”. She believes that a person’s sex is an immutable characteristic and that “gender ideology”, which recognises a person’s gender identity, is “wrong and dangerous”. Her evidence is that gender ideology has been embraced by the organisers of the Event, Northern Pride Events Limited (“Northern Pride”), and was supported by many of the participants in the Event, who also strongly oppose gender critical beliefs. She entirely accepts that it was necessary for the Event to be policed, but she objects to what she sees as the Force and/or members of the Force associating themselves with the views of supporters of gender ideology and transgender activists by actively participating in the Event.
……….
Decision
. . .
[I]t is not hard to imagine circumstances in which the officers in question might be called on to deal with a clash between gender critical people and supporters of gender ideology, and therefore situations where the former had cause for concern as to whether they were being dealt with impartially. The Claimant gives the example of allegations of harassment and counter harassment on social media and, of course, harassment can take other forms as Professor Stock would no doubt agree. By way of other examples of situations in which the police might be required to deal with a clash between the competing perspectives, there might be an issue for the Force as to whether gender critical people should themselves be permitted to demonstrate and, if so, where and when. There might be an attempted counter demonstration by gender critical people which required the police to deal with it. There might be an attempt to eject a gender critical person from the March. In all of these cases, the fact that the officers had publicly stated their support for transgender rights by taking part in the 2024 March would be likely to give the impression that they may not deal with the matter fairly and impartially.
When one adds the fact that the Force’s static display, staffed by police officers, was adorned with the Progress Flag and included the Northumbria Police badge and the blue, pink and white of the transgender flag as part of the same display, the impression that there was an expression of institutional support for gender ideology and transgender rights is enhanced further. Similarly, the fact that a police van, which might have been used for law enforcement purposes, was also painted or marked prominently with transgender colours served to add to the impression that the Force as a whole was associating itself with a particular viewpoint and, as far as gender critical people were concerned, taking sides.
. . .
I therefore allow the Claim and will make an appropriate declaration accordingly.
This is an interesting case.
And of course the police should attend all marches, whether of foot ball fans or gay pride events. But only to keep the peace as is their role.
This enforced cheering is doing no good for the forces reputation.
We get the same thing happening here during mardigras. Remember the big drama last year when the police officer murdered the gay couple and the police were not invited?
It’s madness.