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

The claim concerned the lawfulness of the Chief Constable's decision to permit and not to prohibit active participation by Northumbria Police officers, including the Chief Constable herself, in the Newcastle Pride in the City 2024 march and associated displays bearing Progressive/Trans colours. The court applied the statutory and regulatory framework governing police impartiality (Police Act 1996 s.29; Police Regulations 2003 paragraph 1 of Schedule 1; Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020 and the College of Policing Code of Ethics) and the public sector equality duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010.

The judge found that the decision-maker had misunderstood the relationship between the PSED and the duty of impartiality, treating the PSED as capable of justifying or requiring participation that risked apparent partiality. The officer-level duty to avoid activities likely to interfere with or give the impression of interference with impartiality applied ’at all times’ and required careful analysis of particular activities.

The court held that marching in uniform as a police contingent, leading that contingent, the static display incorporating Progressive/Trans colours and the marked police van were activities which, objectively, were likely to give rise to the impression among members of the public (including those with gender critical beliefs) that the officers or the Force might not discharge their duties impartially. The Chief Constable's reasoning in the June 2024 letter did not adequately address those considerations and was irrational. The claim was therefore allowed in relation to the 2024 Event and a declaratory remedy was ordered limited to that event.

Background and parties: The claimant is a self‑described lesbian who holds gender critical beliefs. She challenged the Chief Constable of Northumbria Police by judicial review seeking a declaration that the Force's participation in Newcastle Pride in the City 2024 and the Chief Constable's decision to permit such participation were unlawful. Permission was granted and the hearing was expedited so that a decision could be issued ahead of the 2025 Pride event. The National Police Chiefs' Council made written submissions as interested party but did not attend. Key lay and expert witnesses included the claimant, Mr Harry Miller and Professor Kathleen Stock.

Relief sought: A declaration that the Force's activities at Newcastle Pride 2024 and the Chief Constable's related decision were unlawful because they breached the duty of impartiality.

Issues for decision: (i) Whether the claim was academic given that the 2024 march had already occurred and the Force proposed a different approach for 2025; (ii) whether the Chief Constable acted lawfully in authorising or failing to prohibit officers participating in the 2024 march and displaying Progressive/Trans colours, in light of duties of impartiality and the public sector equality duty; (iii) whether any error in reasoning was irrational such that the court should intervene.

Evidence and factual findings: The court accepted uncontradicted material that Northern Pride and many march participants support gender identity‑focused policy positions (the Progressive flag being associated with that agenda); that the Force had publicly supported Pride in prior years; that a contingent of uniformed officers, led by the Chief Constable, marched in 2024 carrying or displaying Pride/Progressive insignia; and that there was a police static display and a police van bearing Trans/Progressive colours. The claimant adduced contemporaneous pre‑action correspondence (4 June 2024) and the Chief Constable's substantive pre‑action reply (18 June 2024), together with a later witness statement dealing with arrangements for 2025.

Court’s reasoning and conclusion: The court held the claim was not academic and that it was appropriate to determine it. On law, the duty of impartiality (reflected in the oath of attestation, Police Regulations 2003, Code of Ethics and Police Conduct Regulations 2020) requires officers to abstain from activities likely to interfere with the impartial discharge of duties or to give the impression that they may do so. The PSED (Equality Act 2010 s.149) requires due regard to equality objectives but does not displace or justify breach of the duty of impartiality. The Chief Constable's 18 June 2024 letter revealed legal error and an inadequate analysis of whether the specific activities were likely to interfere with or give the impression of interfering with impartiality. On the facts, the uniformed contingent marching alongside, and in proximity to, flags and placards promoting gender identity objectives, the static display with Progressive/Trans colours bearing the Force insignia, and the marked van were objectively capable of conveying institutional support for gender identity policy positions and thus likely to give rise to an impression of partiality among gender critical members of the public. The Chief Constable's decision was irrational in both process and outcome and the claimant's claim succeeded in relation to the 2024 Event; the declaration made was limited to the 2024 Event.

This was a first‑instance judicial review claim which the court allowed. The court held that the Chief Constable’s decision to permit and not prohibit the participation of uniformed officers (including the Chief Constable) in the 2024 Pride march, together with the static display and marked van bearing Progressive/Trans colours, was unlawful. The reasons were (i) a legal error in treating the public sector equality duty as capable of justifying or requiring participation that risked apparent partiality; (ii) inadequate reasoning and failure to address whether the specific activities were likely to interfere with or give the impression of interfering with officers’ impartiality; and (iii) the overall decision was outside the range of reasonable decisions open to the Chief Constable. The declaration made was confined to the 2024 Event.