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

An article by Doc Stock in Unherd

https://archive.ph/a0JgU

https://unherd.com/2026/05/the-rewriting-of-campus-history/?edition=us

Sacha Roseneil is calling for Professor Ahmed to resign, or be sacked.

it looks like it was a Parliament FU

Agree - in fact we could have a thread and nearly every day would be able to add another instances where something that has not been effective will turn out to be that.

She is a Justice of the High Court of England and Wales, and sits in the Family Court Division of the High Court. That's different to the Family Court, which is a lower court. Family Court Judges are much junior to High Court Judges.

She is experienced in administrative law, and it's not unusual for High Court Judges sometimes to sit on cases in other divisions.

I suspect they will. They need to test out the boundaries of the powers and this judgment seemed to limit rather too many points - it looks like it was a Parliament FU because they didn't work out how HERA was going to interact with all the existing structures. The only way they can work it out is by test cases I supppose. On the other hand the new complaints process closes some of the loopholes that Sussex has slipped through and the OfS will have learned a lot from this process, so next uni on the hook will not get off so lightly... the fine may not have fallen due, but the intent is clear and universities need to clean house

Although the judge works in the family court she’s also a specialist in administrative law. She will be well qualified. It will be interesting to see if the OfS seeks to appeal.

@SwirlyGates Yes. It’s about using a fair procedure to investigate and administer a fine. It’s reasonable to expect a fair process and Sussex say they didn’t get it. Not sure it was about free speech. I agree, it was about process.

I feel she has an interest somewhere in this topic, possibly undeclared. She is a Family Court judge so not totally sure why this case and other similar are falling under her brief/remit.

The court ruling had nothing to do with, nor did it comment on, what happened to Kathleen Stock.

It is, as mentioned up thread, and in the quote I posted earlier from the Court summary of the Judgement, that basically OfS abused the process they are meant to follow.

So sadly because they FU, thr actual issue has not been addressed.

The Court judgement didn't say Sussex University was right, it just said procedures against them were faulty.

Lets hope one day there will be people working in the OfS who know how to do their job.

Well yes, but I was really highlighting the responses, which saw it as a victory for free speech, when in fact it's just the opposite - the uni was supporting the students who abused and threatened Kathleen Stock for exercising her right to free speech.

The uni statement says, "Sussex has today cleared its name, and we remain committed as ever to academic freedom and freedom of speech." Complete nonsense and they should be ashamed of themselves. https://www.sussex.ac.uk/news/focus/freedom-of-speech

In any case, removal of the fine seems to be down to a technicality of the process followed, rather than agreement or disagreement with either Kathleen Stock or the uni.

Again, show where the judgement in question is wrong. Making glib barbs like that will not convince anyone not already firmly in your camp.

@SwirlyGates Of course the university is happy! They won.

I saw a post from Sussex Uni on Facebook, celebrating the decision. Most of the replies saw it as a win for free speech - morons, they obviously have no idea what they're talking about.

Taking lessons from China perhaps.🧐

Reminds me of the Soviet Bloc.

@SingleSexSpacesInSchools Many judges have judgements overturned by the Court of Appeal! If there was never a need for an appeal, there would not be a court with that name! That she’s taking challenging cases with closely debated points means there’s room for legal interpretation and not everyone will agree. Should it go to the court of appeal, this could be the case. This case was not an appeal. It was a case brought by the university.

It's such a compelling argument to play the "blame the judge" card rather than demonstrate which points of law were decided incorrectly.

Don’t worry, there are already many law firms out there offering to explain it for a fee 😁

Presumably because the Guardian is amongst the most bigoted, anti-woman sources out there. HTH.

so true. An ex colleague of mine is a professor and gender is one of her hot topics. She’s fiercely intelligent but says the most dumb things about what’s obviously a social construct. I assume it’s because her whole career, life and identity is built around the premise that gender identity is an actual verifiable thing. And permits men to trample all over women’s rights in its name.