Miller, R (On the Application Of) v The College of Policing & Anor

Miller, R (On the Application Of) v The College of Policing & Anor

The mere recording of non-crime hate incidents under HCOG does not, without more, constitute an interference with Article 10 rights. However, the police's actions in visiting the Claimant's workplace, warning him about potential criminal prosecution, and misrepresenting the effect of his tweets amounted to a disproportionate interference with his freedom of expression under Article 10(1), not justified by any pressing social need or legitimate aim. HCOG itself is lawful, but the police's operational application in this case was unlawful.

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, Police Powers, Hate Crime Policy, Article 10 ECHR, Proportionality, Common Law Rights
Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Administrative Law Freedom of Expression Police Powers Hate Crime Policy Article 10 ECHR Proportionality +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 5 Authorities cited 32 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 Hate Crime Operational Guidance (HCOG) unlawfully interferes with freedom of expression under common law and Article 10 ECHR
  2. 2 Whether the police's recording of non-crime hate incidents and subsequent actions towards the Claimant constituted unlawful interference with Article 10 rights
  3. 3 Whether HCOG is prescribed by law and proportionate under Article 10(2)

Ratio Decidendi

The mere recording of non-crime hate incidents under HCOG does not, without more, constitute an interference with Article 10 rights. However, the police's actions in visiting the Claimant's workplace, warning him about potential criminal prosecution, and misrepresenting the effect of his tweets amounted to a disproportionate interference with his freedom of expression under Article 10(1), not justified by any pressing social need or legitimate aim. HCOG itself is lawful, but the police's operational application in this case was unlawful.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in part

Orders

  • Declaration that the police's actions towards the Claimant disproportionately interfered with his Article 10 right to freedom of expression
  • No order that HCOG is unlawful