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

[SingleSexSpacesInSchools]

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2026/apr/29/sussex-university-overturns-fine-free-speech-kathleen-stock?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=bluesky&CMP=bsky_gu

sorry to send you to the guardian.

Consider this to be bad news indeed.

Personal sanctions should happen, not just fines. Dismissal and a ban from working in that sphere for a period of time.

Health and Safety on construction sites greatly improved when directors and others could be held personally liable.

But this isn't the situation here.

The court ruled on the narrow remit the OfS has.

And saying they have over reached themselves, and / or misinterpreted the guidelines they operate under.

If this ruling means that some will now say the remit for the OfS is wrong then maybe that needs to be dealt with.

But if the OfS were just incompetent then that is another.

In practice the OfS's ruling and fine didn't make a difference. The Righteous have continued to operate unencumbered, free to impose their Very Kind Zealotry upon most of academia. So while it is bad news, nothing actually changed for those of us working in HE; as was explained upthread, the imposition of Righteous pressure mostly happens at a covert, insidious, self-silencing level.

From Prof Alice Sullivan on X.
https://x.com/i/status/2049540869020389840

There is much that is troubling in Mrs Justice Lieven's judgment in favour of the University of Sussex, but this stands out.

The judge suggests that if someone objects to a 'gender critical feminist lecture' it might be reasonable for the university to demand that the lecture should be read in advance by 'the university'.

So lecturers who believe that sex is real should have their lectures vetted by administrators if someone complains in advance of the lecture.

This type of incentive is exactly what activists thrive on. And it suggests a regime which strips academics of all autonomy and acadmic freedom.
judiciary.uk/judgments/the-…

Micromanaging control freakery. 😵‍💫

Just came here to post that. A very troubling suggestion indeed - an approval process in fact....

And for the spectators on this thread who might doubt how appallingly Sussex University treated Professor Kathleen Stock, just watch Part 2 of the BBC documentary, Speechless. See how you would feel walking through the threatening harassing protestors, that Prof Stock was subject to.

It would be awful, but that’s a matter for an employment tribunal, not the OfS.

True - but wasn't it the University's policy which had enabled the masked protestors and that they then refused to move them?

Also can anyone help me understand - the judge in this appeal said that OfS hadn't taken account that the Uni had changed/corrected the policy by the end of process? But am I right in thinking that it took 3.5 years and 3 versions of the policy for them to cough up the final corrected version? The epitome of being dragged kicking and screaming through a regulator's process? In my experience regulators are allowed to take into account when a respondant doesn't admit charges or seeks to resist the process - isn't this what happened? Sorry if that is a daft question as I didn't follow the details of the hearing

The judge addressed that very issue (and many others) and is worth reading in its entirety if any of todays judgement is surprising to you.

Transgender reddit not uniformly thrilled.
P-t-d:
We needed a declaration that the (transgender) policy was inherently rational.
Instead we got confirmation that the policy potentially can constitute an unlawful chilling effect.
I agree there are positive elements to this judgement, bad processes should be challenged etc, there just isn't anything which advances our cause.
Even the comments re the OfS not having jurisdiction over the Policy isn't actually impactful because since this case OfS had made approval of such policies a condition of registration which sidesteps the whole E1 discussion entirely.

Have to admit I am even less clear now on the ruling having read the official press briefing which I posted up thread.

... the OfS unlawfully predetermined the decision because of:

(i) its overarching strategy from the opening of the investigation to find a “test case” that would “send a strong signal” [428];

(ii) its approach to settlement negotiations, where the OfS assumed a breach before the Provisional Decision was reached, and refused to meet the University unless the University accepted the alleged breaches in their entirety, [432]-[433];

(iii) the OfS’s approach to other higher education providers that were
using the same policy. Dr Ahmed wrote to the other universities using the same policy template only after the FD was published, highlighting the breach and the fine, which points again to the OfS’s strategy, [434]-[435];

(iv) the OfS’s failure to refer to FOSCOP, [436]; the OfS’s refusal
to consider whether the University had remedied the breaches, [437].

Me too!

I moved on to try the full judgment but it all hinges on very detailed procedural loopholes matters which aren’t easy to track.

One big issue seems to be that MPs didnt clearly define “governing documents” in HERA. When debated in parliament someone wanted to add “and practices” to that but the revision wasnt made. This court has taken a literal view and these documents dont include policies which control the aims & objectives on the ground which seems really odd. If your policies contradict the governing documents (as defined by the court) covering free speech, then how can these be ignored?

The judgment talks about the OfS being concerned that “lawful speech” saying that this is unfortunate but ok. Does this judge understand how far the controls on speech extend ie use of the word “man” etc etc? It seemed like the whole thing was terribly lawyerly but simultaneously completely out of touch - like the “sex for all purposes” statement they all clung to from the GRA…

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.

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

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

Look at the name of the judge….. same judge as the Hampstead ladies pond I think…

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

@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.

Reminds me of the Soviet Bloc.

Taking lessons from China perhaps.🧐

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.

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