Sussex University overturns £585,000 fine as high court rejects free speech breach claim

Amen to that!

I don't think this will be the last we hear of this case and I hope this decision doesn't stand.

No worries - not even sure how important it is. But adds to the fallout from the court case or rather the decision.

argh thanks - I only saw the subscriber link - didn't spot the archive

Point of order: both the spiked article and Jo Phoenix’s article are incorrect that the court/its judgement determined that academic freedom is only breached if an academic is in danger of losing their job and/or privileges. That is literally the definition of academic freedom laid down in the HE Freedom of Speech Act, and wasn’t up for interpretation. (Whether or not the legal framework is fit for purpose is however a moot point…..)

Already posted upthread!

Regulatory ‘rethink and reset’ required after Sussex ruling
By Jack Grove in Times Higher:
archive.is/wOYyk

@Imnobody4 It is irrelevant. It’s the process used by OFS that was at fault!!! Nothing about feelings.

Freddie Attenborough's take on the verdict, apparently the Uni spent more money fighting the fine than the actual fine was 🤯 and these are the countries brightest!!!!

"Part of the problem lies in the High Court’s restrictive interpretation of what counts as a ‘governing document’. "

"Filtered through various committees and working groups, often dominated by activist staff in rainbow lanyards, these EDI policies and harassment codes are what now regulate much of what can and cannot be said on campus. The result is a whole layer of policies that, in practice, function as the ‘documents that govern’ university life will no longer be treated as ‘governing documents’ that the OfS can scrutinise."

The High Court has rewarded Kathleen Stock’s persecutors - spiked

Jo Phoenix has written a blog. She's not happy.

Today’s blog is about a single phrase, on page 56 of the judgment.

“Irrelevant considerations.”

That is the phrase Mrs Justice Lieven uses, at paragraph 271, to describe the chilling effect on academic freedom and the stress and anxiety inflicted on academics. Irrelevant. Not ‘relevant but insufficient’. Not ‘present but outweighed’. Irrelevant. To breach the academic freedom principle, the judgment tells us, an academic must be in jeopardy of losing their job. Not in jeopardy of disciplinary process. Not at risk of psychological injury or even at risk of unlawful harassment and discrimination. Not subject to a chilling effect “however harmful that might be.”

https://jophoenix.substack.com/p/irrelevant-considerations

Thank you, I understand and agree with what you are saying. My regret is that the judgment was NOT about Sussex Uni's violation of free speech.

I promise not to lock you in my cellar, if you promise not to [a] steal my wallet, and [b] accept that I understand what you are saying, and that I am complaining about what the judgement is not, not what it is

[Shush everyone - don't tell MoreDangerousThanAWomanScorned that I don't actually have a cellar, so she can steal my wallet, and post an infinite number of posts explaining the judgement to me, with impunity]

Lol they’re constantly resetting! I think this probably refers to the new-ish OfS strategy for 2025-2030 ie much broader than just freedom of speech

Have just found this, published today:

Regulatory ‘rethink and reset’ required after Sussex ruling
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/regulatory-rethink-and-reset-required-after-sussex-ruling and https://archive.is/wOYyk

Apparently the fine was 15 times higher than any previous fines, although none had been on the issue of free speech.

Quote from AI:

In early 2026, there was a major change in leadership, with the chief executive Susan Lapworth leaving and Ruth Hannant and Polly Payne appointed as new chief executives to lead the "reset" of the regulator's role

Does anyone know what this reset is?

Not saying I grasp all the nuances of the ruling, but clearly the problem here is that the OfS is as the court implied too keen on making an example (which may make them feel good about themselves) rather than showing which they have the power to do, how Sussex University failed Kathleen Stock and the right of students to be able to discuss issues of importance to them.

If their self aggrandising antics only slow down the process of Unversities being held to account, it will, as always, show that nothing in the UK works, let alone anything created by politicians.

I see they have actually been in existence since 2018.

Have they achieved anything during that period of time?

Sussex Uni allowed a prolonged campaign of ostracising, harassment, intimidation by masked individuals, death threats etc against one of its senior academics BUT
..because this didn't fall under the scope of its 'governing documents', nothing to see here, move on?

I worked with the then Sussex VC a few years before (there's a different VC now, who supervised Sally Hines' PhD, so genderborg supreme) & in another capacity at another university: he was an flat-footed idiot then, and I suspect was similarly talented while Professor Stock was working at Sussex.

But that was the nature of this appeal - the judge didn't choose not to comment on whether or not Sussex had violated free speech, it wasn't a matter in her remit. And actually, on the only point put before the court that did touch on the actual facts of the matter, the judge did not uphold Sussex's case (Sussex claimed that the OfS had claimed there had been a chilling effect with no evidence; the judge didn't uphold this because she found the OfS's reading of the evidence to meet the standard of rationality).

As an analogy, it's like if you thought I had stolen your wallet, so you locked me in your cellar, and then a judge was asked to rule on whether or not you were right to lock me in your cellar. The judge isn't supposed to deciding whether I stole your wallet, or whether stealing is wrong - the point is that you don't have the authority or grounds to lock me in your cellar for it in the way you did. The OfS did the equivalent of the locking in the cellar; it's not for this case whether or not Sussex did steal the wallet.

I probably didn't express myself well, sorry.

I was lamenting the fact that the blatant infringement of academic freedom by Sussex Uni, i.e. allowing an atmosphere of fear and intimidation to flourish, was not -as you point out - central to the judgment.

So I agree with you that the judgement was more about the OfS and how it operates; my regret is that it was not about Sussex Uni and how it operated.

No, you've haven't got it straight. This judgement wasn't about, and had no capacity to review, whether Sussex had infringed academic freedom, yet alone whether it was justified in doing so. What it found is that in coming to its conclusion a) OfS stepped the powers then had then (they have new ones now) and b) didn't follow its own processes and didn't conduct a fair and open process. It doesn't say anything about the conclusion the OfS reached, just the way it did it. One option that would be open to the OfS would be to restart the investigation, and if they did it might come to exactly the same conclusion that Sussex had contravened academic freedom. I don't think the OfS will do that, both because it would be humiliating and because they would have to do something quite convoluted and arms length to show that this new investigation wasn't, like the court found the previous one was, predetermined in outcome. But they could do so without contravening the finding of this court in any way.

Something which hasn’t been picked up much by commentators so far is that the judge did not uphold Sussex’s claim that there was ‘no evidence of a chilling effect’ arising from the Positive Representation Statement (ie the one since withdrawn), and commented that ‘people may be unwilling to come forward and give specific evidence of the effect on them.’ This wasn’t pursued any further though, because the overriding focus was on OfS messing up their investigation thus rendering the finding invalid. But it’s a start.

I expect the new complaints scheme and condition of registration will enable OfS to drill more deeply into what is going on on campuses and the detail of specific cases - assuming they don’t screw that up too!

There are excellent analyses of this in the Times Higher by Smita Jamdar and Jack Grove if you’re able to access them (apologies, don’t have sharing links)

So let me see if I've this straight:
Sussex Uni allowed a prolonged campaign of ostracising, harassment, intimidation by masked individuals, death threats etc against one of its senior academics BUT
..because this didn't fall under the scope of its 'governing documents', nothing to see here, move on?

Yeah its true Kathleen Stock was threatened and harassed and ultimately driven out of the university - but what could we do? There's nothing in our governing documents that says you can't threatened and harassed and ultimately drive a senior academic out of the university because you don't like what she says.
So our hands were tied, what could we do, other than let masked protestors intimidate and threaten her to their hearts' content?

'Protecting freedom of speech' requires something more robust and proactive than universities looking into the finer details/escape clauses in their Governing Documents as they watch graffiti and flares and masked gangs and death threats taking place in their 'bastions of free speech'