Police ‘like Gestapo’ in transphobic tweet probe, blasts judge
Businessman’s landmark win in free speech case
A HIGH Court judge yesterday likened police to the Nazi Gestapo in the way they investigated a businessman accused of transphobic tweets.
Mr Justice Julian Knowles said officers violated Harry Miller’s freedom of expression by recording his comments as a hate incident and threatening prosecution.
He also blasted the heavyhanded manner in which they turned up to quiz him at his business last year.
The probe was sparked after Mr Miller was reported for 31 posts, including a limerick, about transgender issues.
In a landmark ruling for free speech, Mr Justice Knowles said he did not break the law.
He added: ‘The effect of the police turning up at his place of work because of his political opinions must not be underestimated.
‘It would be to undervalue a cardinal democratic freedom in this country. We have never had a Cheka, Gestapo or a Stasi’ – a reference to the secret police forces in Stalin’s Soviet Union, Nazi Germany and former Communist East Germany.
The judge also referred to George Orwell’s dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four in which thought police control the State and punish personal political views. He said: ‘We have never lived in an Orwellian society.’
The judge began his judgment
Mrs B, who complained to the Metropolitan Police. It sent the complaint on for investigation to Humberside Police, which covers the area where Mr Miller ran his business.
He was visited at his plant and machinery business by officers
Despite being told he had not committed a crime, they recorded his tweets as ‘noncrime hate incidents’ in line with strict guidelines issued by the College of Policing, which sets standards for forces in England and Wales.
Mr Justice Knowles said Mr Miller’s tweets were ‘lawful’ and there was ‘not the slightest risk’ he would commit a crime by continuing to write them.
Yet the police had led him to believe that he was being warned not to post further comments about transgender issues ‘ on pain of potential criminal prosecution’.
Mr Miller, who founded campaign group Fair Cop, launched a wider challenge against the lawfulness of the guidelines.
But this was not upheld by the High Court.
The regulations require police to record so called ‘hate incidents’ whether or not they are crimes in order to collect intelligence about what is happening in their local communities.
The judge said the policing rulebook which define noncrime hate incidents as ‘any non- crime incident which is perceived by the victim or any other person to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice against a person to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice against a person who is transgender or perceived to be transgender’.
He said the rules ‘serve legitimate purposes and are not disproportionate’.
However, he granted permission for Mr Miller’s challenge to the guidance to go directly to highest judicial body in the land – the Supreme Court.
He added Mr Miller strongly denied being prejudiced against transgender people.
And he said the business owner regarded himself as taking part in the ‘ongoing debate’ about reform of the Gender Recognition Act 2004. If approved, it will allow people more freedom to self-identify as transgender if they wish.
Responding to the ruling outside the High Court, Mr Miller said: ‘ This is a watershed moment for liberty.
‘The police were wrong to visit my work and were wrong to tell me, as one officer did, that they were “checking my thinking”.
‘I am going to continue tweeting. The ruling today says that we can continue to do that about what is a very important issue, particularly for women and their sex-based rights.
‘If the police come knocking, you can tell them about my case today.’
Mr Miller had explained to the Daily Mail before yesterday’s ruling: ‘It is definitely not the job of the State to restrict what we can or cannot talk about, either in face to face conversations or online.’
Mr Miller’s solicitor said: ‘This is a vindication of Mr Miller’s actions in posting tweets that were critical of transgender ideology and practice.
‘ It is a strong warning to local police forces not to interfere with people’s free speech on matters of significant controversy.’