Lynsay Watson, R (on the application of) v The Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police

The Claimant sought judicial review of the decision of Greater Manchester Police to take no further action in respect of certain Tweets posted by the Interested Party between 13 and 17 February 2023. The central legal issue was whether the Defendant had incorrectly applied the law in concluding that the messages were not "grossly offensive" within the meaning of the Malicious Communications Act 1988, s.1 and the Communications Act 2003, s.127, such that to proceed would have been an unjustified interference with the author’s right to freedom of expression under Article 10 ECHR.

The court applied the established authorities (including Collins, Connolly, Scottow, Miller and Casserly) and concluded that the posts, taken in their full context (a charged public debate about gender and the immediate context of a tragic murder), did not meet the heightened threshold of being objectively "grossly offensive". Proceeding further would have been a disproportionate interference with Article 10 rights. Other asserted grounds (including alleged breaches of Articles 3, 8 and 14, possible harassment or public order offences, and a public sector equality duty challenge) either fell outside the grant of permission or, if considered, were also outweighed by Article 10 considerations. The Claimant’s application to strike out was refused. The claim is dismissed on the merits.

Background and parties: The Claimant (a trans woman, Twitter user @Peppercorn) complained to the police about 15 tweets by the Interested Party (username @WingsOverScotland) posted in the days after the murder of Brianna Ghey. She alleged criminality in the posts and challenged the police decision of 25 November 2023 to take no further action.

Procedural posture: The claim was issued 10 April 2024. Permission was initially refused on the papers but at an oral renewal hearing on 14 August 2024 HHJ Bird granted permission in respect of a single ground that the police had "incorrectly applied the law". The Interested Party was added as an Interested Party by this court in R (Watson) v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police [2025] EWHC 332 (Admin). The substantive hearing took place on 6 February 2025 and further written submissions were received in late March 2025.

Relief sought: Judicial review of the decision to close the investigation and to take no further action, with a contention that the Defendant had misapplied the law in determining that the tweets did not constitute criminal communications.

Issues framed: (i) Whether the Defendant erred in law by concluding the tweets were not "grossly offensive" within MCA 1988 s.1 or CA 2003 s.127 and that proceeding would unjustifiably interfere with Article 10 ECHR; (ii) whether other offences (harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 s.2, or offences under the Public Order Act 1986 ss.4A/5) were engaged; (iii) procedural issues including alleged delay, joinder of the Interested Party, and application to strike out; (iv) asserted breaches of Articles 3, 8 and 14 and of the public sector equality duty (s.149 Equality Act 2010).

Court’s reasoning and disposition: The court applied the settled test that "grossly offensive" is a high objective threshold (drawing on Collins, Connolly, Scottow, Casserly and Miller). The tweets fell within the context of sensitive but politically and socially controversial debate (gender identity and recognition) and contained opinions shared by others; they did not cross the threshold of being objectively grossly offensive. The decision to close the investigation therefore correctly reflected the need to protect freedom of expression under Article 10 and was proportionate. The application to strike out was refused as disproportionate and because the Interested Party had been permitted to participate and to make submissions after joinder. Other grounds either lacked permission or, when considered, did not alter the Article 10 balancing. The claim was dismissed.

The claim is dismissed. The court held that the Defendant lawfully and correctly concluded that the relevant social media posts were not objectively "grossly offensive" within the meaning of the Malicious Communications Act 1988, s.1 or the Communications Act 2003, s.127 and that to proceed further would have been an unjustified and disproportionate interference with the Interested Party’s Article 10 ECHR rights. The application to strike out was refused and other asserted Convention and statutory grounds did not justify a different outcome.

Claim issued 10 April 2024. Permission initially refused on the papers (7 June 2024); renewed orally and permission granted by HHJ Bird on 14 August 2024 limited to the ground that the Defendant had "incorrectly applied the law". The Interested Party was added by this court in R (Watson) v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police [2025] EWHC 332 (Admin). Substantive hearing before Mrs Justice Hill on 6 February 2025; judgment delivered 16 April 2025.