Miller, R (On the Application Of) v The College of Policing & Anor [2020] EWHC 225 (Admin) (14 February 2020)

Miller, R (On the Application Of) v The College of Policing & Anor [2020] EWHC 225 (Admin) (14 February 2020)

The court held that while the recording of non-crime hate incidents is not per se unlawful, the manner in which Humberside Police applied the HCOG to the claimant's tweets, and the subsequent warnings and actions, amounted to a disproportionate interference with his Article 10 right to freedom of expression. The police's actions were not justified or necessary in a democratic society, particularly as there was no evidence of criminality or risk of escalation, and the guidance was applied without critical scrutiny or proportionality.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 225 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Harry Miller; First Defendant: The College of Policing; Second Defendant: The Chief Constable of Humberside
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed in part
Legal Topics
Freedom of Expression, Article 10 ECHR, Police Operational Guidance, Non Crime Hate Incidents, Transgender Rights, Judicial Review Procedure
Public Law Human Rights Law Police Law Freedom of Expression Article 10 ECHR Police Operational Guidance Non Crime Hate Incidents Transgender Rights +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Harry Miller

Claimant

The College of Policing

First Defendant

The Chief Constable of Humberside

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the College of Policing's Hate Crime Operational Guidance (HCOG) is unlawful as contrary to common law and/or Article 10 ECHR
  2. 2 Whether the police's actions in recording and acting on a non-crime hate incident against the claimant were unlawful and a disproportionate interference with Article 10 rights

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that while the recording of non-crime hate incidents is not per se unlawful, the manner in which Humberside Police applied the HCOG to the claimant's tweets, and the subsequent warnings and actions, amounted to a disproportionate interference with his Article 10 right to freedom of expression. The police's actions were not justified or necessary in a democratic society, particularly as there was no evidence of criminality or risk of escalation, and the guidance was applied without critical scrutiny or proportionality.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in part

Orders

  • Declaration that the police's actions in this case were unlawful and a disproportionate interference with the claimant's Article 10 rights
  • No quashing of the HCOG as a whole