Lindsey Smith, R (on the application of) v The Chief Constable of Northumbria Police

Police officers must maintain impartiality at all times. An activity is prohibited where it is likely either to interfere with impartial performance or to create the impression that it may do so. The public sector equality duty does not qualify or override that obligation.

A chief constable deciding whether to authorise participation in a public event must identify the specific activity, assess both limbs of the impartiality duty, investigate the event’s nature and context, and proceed cautiously. The court may intervene where the reasoning contains a material legal or logical error, or where the outcome falls outside the range of reasonable decisions.

Uniformed officers marching as a police contingent at a Pride event, led by the chief constable and accompanied by police displays and vehicles bearing transgender-related imagery, was unlawful on the facts.

The claimant sought judicial review of the Chief Constable’s decision to authorise Northumbria Police officers, including herself, to participate actively in the 2024 Newcastle Pride in the City event. Officers marched in uniform, police insignia and Pride imagery were displayed, and a police vehicle bore transgender-related colours.

The claimant argued that these activities associated the Force with contested views and breached the officers’ duty of impartiality. The Chief Constable denied unlawfulness and argued that the claim was academic because arrangements for the 2025 event differed. The central issues were whether the claim should be determined, the scope of the impartiality duty, the relevance of the public sector equality duty, and whether the 2024 decision was irrational.

1. The claim was determined. It concerned a live dispute about the lawfulness of the 2024 decisions. Even if academic, the issues were important, current and of public interest, particularly given the absence of settled guidance on policing impartiality at community events.
2. Impartiality. The duty under the Police Regulations 2003, Schedule 1, paragraph 1 applies at all times, whether an officer is on duty or in uniform. The activity must be assessed by asking whether it is likely to interfere with impartial performance and, separately, whether it is likely to create the relevant public impression. The second limb is not answered by asserting that officers would in fact act professionally.
3. Decision-making. A rational decision-maker should identify the proposed activity, consider both limbs of the duty, examine the event’s nature and implications, make reasonable inquiries, and proceed cautiously. The Chief Constable’s 2024 reasoning contained an error of law because it treated the public sector equality duty as capable of qualifying the duty of impartiality. It also failed to analyse the specific activities or engage adequately with the claimant’s case.
4. Outcome. The 2024 march was part of an event organised and used to promote support for transgender rights and related views. The uniformed contingent, its formation as a police group, the Chief Constable’s leadership, the flags and the police displays and vehicle were likely to create the impression that the officers and Force might not deal impartially with gender-critical people. The decision was therefore outside the range of reasonable decisions open to the Chief Constable.
5. The wider question whether a serving officer could ever participate in a Pride march, including while off duty or wearing an identifying shirt, was not decided. The claim was allowed and an appropriate declaration was ordered, limited to the 2024 Event.

First-instance judicial review. Permission was granted by Hill J on 23 May 2025. The claim concerning the 2024 Event was allowed by Mr Justice Linden.