On Monday 1 September 2025, comedy author Graham Linehan, was arrested by 5 armed law enforcement officials at Heathrow Airport the place he was returning to from the US. The grounds for the arrest have been that Mr Linehan was moderately suspected of getting dedicated an offence of inciting violence towards a protected group by posts on the X (previously Twitter) platform in April 2025.
It seems that the arrest associated to a few posts on X in April 2025, particularly this one
The arrest has attracted appreciable criticism. Supporters of Mr Linehan’s views on trans points have described the arrest as “shameful” and urged that “free speech in Britain is on life help“. Well being Secretary Wes Streeting has mentioned that ministers must “take a look at” legal guidelines regarding on-line speech. The Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Mark Rowley, has mentioned that his officers are in an “not possible place” and referred to as for a change within the legislation.
Mr Linehan is a provocateur. He has been a vocal – it could be thought obsessive – critic of transgender activism on X and different platforms. He is because of go on trial shortly on separate prices of harassment and legal injury involving a transgender activist. He makes statements by which it seems he intends to impress and offend transgender folks.
The legislation undoubtedly protects offensive speech, supplied that it doesn’t incite violence (see the well-known dictum of Sedley LJ in Redmond-Bate v DPP [1999] EWHC Admin 733 [20]). It’s debatable that Mr Lineham’s publish crossed the road – notably taking into consideration the vulnerability of transgender folks and the hostility which they usually encounter. However, taking into consideration the entire publish, the place just isn’t easy. There are some echoes of the infamous “Twitter joke” prosecution (Chambers v Director of Public Prosecutions [2013] 1 WLR 1833).
All that being mentioned, was this actually a case by which it was applicable to arrest Mr Linehan? To ensure that there to be energy lawfully to arrest an individual with no warrant (and there doesn’t appear to have been one on this case), a police officer will need to have cheap grounds
(a) for suspecting that an offence has been dedicated; and
(b) for believing that the arrest is important for one in all 6 causes set out in legislation (see part 24 of the Police and Prison Proof Act 1984).
As to (a) the police clearly believed that they’d cheap grounds to suspect that an offence had been dedicated – and the hurdle right here just isn’t a excessive one.
As to (b), we have no idea on what foundation the arresting officer believed that it was needed arrest Mr Linehan. At first sight, it’s troublesome to see how any legally permitted purpose might apply: his title and handle have been clearly identified, he was not going to trigger damage or loss to property and an arrest was not needed “to permit the immediate and efficient investigation” of an offence alleged to have been dedicated over 4 months earlier.
However even assuming, for the second, that the police had each cheap grounds for suspicion and for perception that the arrest was needed they have been below no obligation to hold it out. The general public debate on this arrest appears to have been carried out on the wholly false foundation that, if the police have purpose to suspect that an offence has been dedicated, they’re obliged to arrest the suspect. This appears to be the premise of Sir Mark Rowley’s defence of the arresting officers and his obvious grievance that they officers are pressured to behave by unhealthy legal guidelines.
Nevertheless, it’s nicely established that the police retain an “government discretion” as as to if or to not arrest somebody they moderately suspect of getting dedicated an offence. That is clear from the wording of part 24 which begins “A constable might arrest with out warrant …” (emphasis added). This is identical wording as earlier statutes (see usually Holgate-Mohammed v Duke [1984] AC 437). This, like all different workouts of discretion by public officers, have to be achieved in a approach which is suitable with Conference rights – the Article 8 rights of trans ladies and the Article 10 rights of audio system. A correct balancing of rights have to be carried out.
In different phrases, even when the police have been right in concluding that there have been cheap grounds for suspecting Mr Linehan had dedicated and offence and (considerably implausibly) that there have been cheap grounds for believing it was essential to arrest him they nonetheless had a discretion as as to if or to not train their energy of arrest.
On this case there are clearly sturdy arguments towards making an arrest. Specifically, there was no rapid danger of repetition, the alleged offence was historic, Mr Linehan’s whereabouts have been identified to the police. An arrest, as opposed, for instance to a request to attend a police station for an interview below warning, is a draconian treatment which is troublesome to justify notably when it’s carried out by armed officers in an airport.
Briefly, “unhealthy legislation” didn’t compel the Metropolitan to ship 5 officers to arrest somebody at Heathrow airport for publish which was over 4 months outdated. It was their very own unhealthy resolution making which has brought about public criticism and broken police efforts to cope with on-line threats of violence.
