High court rules police participation in pride parade was unlawful

High court rules police participation in pride parade was unlawful 

The High Court recently ruled that active police participation in a pride parade was unlawful. The case involved a judicial review application brought by Lindsey Smith, a gender critical lesbian, against the Chief Constable of Northumbria Police. She argued that the active participation of the force’s police officers in Newcastle Pride in 2024 was unlawful because it breached the force’s duty of impartiality.

The background facts 

Ms Smith describes herself as a lesbian that is ‘gender critical’. She believes a person’s sex cannot be changed and that the views surrounding ‘gender ideology’ (which recognises a person’s gender identity), are “wrong and dangerous”.

The problem arose when the Chief Constable of Northumbria and some of its police officers decided to actively participate in the ‘Newcastle Pride in the City 2024’ event. Ms Smith questioned their active participation because from her view, this meant the police were not exercising their duty to be impartial. 

Ms Smith indicated that the issue was not the presence of the police – she accepted they needed to police a large event of this nature – but rather the force’s active participation in the event as follows: 

• On-duty police officers had joined the parade, which she argued supported of the cause of gender ideology via the use of placards, chanting of slogans, imagery and flags, including the Progress flag;

• Northumbria police held a ‘static display’ in the City Centre at the time of the parade, which displayed imagery indicating support for the cause of gender ideology, including the Progress flag; and

• The force had also stationed a police van marked up in colours indicative of support for the cause of gender ideology at event (i.e., the colours of the Progress flag).

The police force’s duties 

All ‘‘Police officers have a particular responsibility to act with fairness and impartiality in all their dealings with the public and their colleagues.’’ (Schedule 1, Regulation 4 of the Police (Conduct) Regulations 1999). 

This duty of ‘impartiality means favouring neither one side nor the other but dealing with people fairly’ (Champion -v- Chief Constable of the Gwent Constabulary [1990] 1 WLR 1). 

Members of police forces are also legally required to ‘‘…at all times abstain from any activity which is likely to interfere with the impartial discharge of [their] duties, or which is likely to give rise to the impression amongst members of the public that it may so interfere”, and must “not take any active part in politics” (Schedule 1, Regulation 6 of the Police Regulations 2003).

The force was also subject to the public sector equality duty, meaning that in the exercise of its functions it was required to have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other prohibited conduct, and advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations between persons who do and do not share a relevant protected characteristic (s149 Equality Act 2010).

Summary of the issues

Ms Smith argued that, by actively participating in the 2024 Newcastle Pride event in the ways described above, the force had associated itself with the views of supporters of gender ideology and transgender activists. The Court heard evidence of the political activities of the pride movement and the fact those political views are an integral part of the Progress flag. Ms Smith argued that, by adopting the colours of the Progress flag, the force could be interpreted as being supportive of those who believe in gender ideology, and make it challenging for the police to deal fairly with the people who endorse opposite views. Ms Smith argued that the Chief Constable’s decision to authorise this participation was unlawful because it was contrary to the force’s duty of impartiality.

The Chief Constable argued that the pride movement was not considered to be political, the force’s active participation was in furtherance of the force’s public sector equality duty and did not breach the police’s impartiality duty and was not therefore unlawful.

High Court decision

The High Court upheld Ms Smith’s application and ruled that the active participation of Northumbria Police in Newcastle Pride in 2024 was unlawful because it breached the force’s duty of impartiality.

The Court held that the activities authorised by the Chief Constable “would be likely to give rise to the impression amongst members of the public that they may” interfere with impartial discharge by police officers of their policing duties. The Chief Constable’s decision to allow the force to actively participate in the manner it did was not legally open for her to make. It was an irrational decision which misunderstood the nature of the public sector equality duty and failed to recognise the political nature of the parade.

What does this mean for other public bodies participating in Pride? 

This decision has had a broader application beyond policing. Public bodies that owe a duty of impartiality should now reconsider their future participation in events like Pride. They must also ensure their activities comply with their founding legislative principles and, where applicable, the public sector equality duty.  

R. (on the application of Smith) -v- Chief Constable of Northumbria [2025] EWHC 1805 (Admin)

Article prepared with the assistance of Serena Omoruyi (intern placed by the 10K Interns Foundation).