The Weekly Round Up: Contested free speech at Sussex, Columbia and Cambridge, increased UK police powers, extradition to Romania blocked
31 March 2025
In the news
The University of Sussex has received a record fine of £585,000 from the UK Office for Students (OfS) for what it has called a “fail[ure] to uphold freedom of speech and academic freedom”. The fine follows an investigation into the circumstances behind the resignation of the philosopher Kathleen Stock, who left the University in 2019 after becoming the object of student protests for her “gender critical views”. The OfS’s investigation focussed primarily on the University’s ‘Trans and Non Binary Equality Policy Statement’, which it claims created a “chilling effect”, giving rise to “the potential for staff and students to self-censor and not speak about or express certain lawful views.” The OfS states that the University may not have complied with section 43 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 (duty relating to freedom of speech); Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) (the right to freedom of expression); Section 19 of the Equality Act 2010 (indirect discrimination); and the Public Sector Equality Duty.
The University of Sussex has responded by saying that it is taking legal action against the OfS. Vice Chancellor Sasha Roseneil has accused the regulator of “effectively decreeing libertarian free speech absolutism as the fundamental principle for UK universities.” According to the OfS’s reasoning, “we can’t now say that we will remove or take down antisemitic or anti-Muslim propaganda because not all such propaganda is illegal.” Roseneil denounced the OfS for “perpetuating the culture wars”.
Free-speech “culture wars” have likewise engulfed the US university sector in recent days. Columbia University’s interim president Katrina Armstrong announced her resignation on Friday, after introducing a set of controversial “reforms” to the Ivy League institution’s governance. The move responded to a withdrawal of $400 million in funding from the federal government for what it called an atmosphere of “chaos and antisemitic harassment on and near campus” during last year’s student protests against Israel’s war on Gaza. The “reforms” included the promise of “rigorous and effective disciplinary actions” against student protestors; the banning of face-coverings, an expanded “internal security force”, and a committment to “full compliance” with visa and immigration regulations; a “review of admissions procedures”; and the revision of the University’s curriculum, “starting immediately with the Middle East.” The publication of the response was highly criticised, and promptly followed by Armstrong’s departure. The American Association of University Professors is now launching a legal challenge to the federal government’s “threats and coercion at Columbia… part of a clear authoritarian playbook meant to crush academic freedom and critical research in American higher education.”
The UK Government also addressed protests this week, announcing plans to enhance police powers to intervene in demonstrations near places of religious worship. According to the Home Office, the proposed amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill will give police more effective and more clearly defined means to impose conditions upon protests that might affect those attending mosques, synagogues, churches and other religious sites. The Home Office claims that police will continue to be required to make a “proportionality assessment”, taking into account “the right to freedom of expression with the right for others to go about their lives free from intimidation and serious disruption.”
In the courts
Disputes over campus protests have also appeared in the High Court. In University of Cambridge v Persons Unknown [2025] EWHC 724 (KB), Mr Justice Scoole granted the University of Cambridge a four-month injunction against demonstrators, led by the Cambridge for Palestine group (C4P), “to restrain them from alleged threats of trespass and private nuisance” at two sites owned by the University (Senate House and Greenwich House). The purpose of the injunction is to cover the sites during forthcoming graduation ceremonies, up to 26 July this year. The sites were previously occupied by demonstrators against Israel’s war on Gaza in May and November 2024. The court held that the injunction was a proportionate interference with C4P’s Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 11 (freedom of assembly) Convention rights, and that the University was entitled to rely on its rights under Protocol 1 Article 1 (right to private property). A further submission by the first intervener, the European Legal Support Centre, that the injunction would be incompatible with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) was dismissed by Mr Justice Scoole, “since the campaigners and protestors are evidently not confined to those of Palestinian heritage… I am also doubtful in respect of the argument based on discrimination on the grounds of opinions and beliefs. But in any case, even if there is discriminatory effect… I am again quite satisfied that the proposed restraint leaves ample opportunity for the protestors to campaign and express their beliefs elsewhere in Cambridge”.
The High Court meanwhile held that the extradition of a Romanian citizen to his country of origin to serve a two-year sentence for driving without a licence would interfere disproportionately with his rights under Article 8 ECHR (respect for private life). In ZA v Cornetu District Court, Romania [2025] EWHC 595 (Admin), Mr Justice Chamberlain found “decisive” two medical reports concerning the post-traumatic stress disorder that the appellant suffered as a result of his previous treatment in a Romanian prison from 2013 to 2017. The reports described how the appellant had been “exposed to actual serious injury, and actual and threatened sexual violence”, including repeated rape by multiple persons, biting, and being burnt with hot metal and plastic: “He persistently re-experiences the trauma” and “would be at significant risk of suicide if he were returned to prison in Romania”. He was further held to be mentally unfit for extradition under section 25 of the Extradition Act 2003. An appeal was also initially lodged on the grounds of Article 3 ECHR (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment). This was, however, refused following Marinescu v Romania [2022] EWHC 2317 (Admin), where a submission on Article 3 concerning the general conditions of the Romanian prison system was dismissed. The appellant, who remains the subject of a separate deportation order, was discharged.
