La democracia ataca de nuevo

Police have recorded nearly 120,000 “non-crime” hate incidents and may have stopped those accused from getting jobs, the Telegraph can disclose.

A High Court judge ruled on Friday the Hate Crime Operational Guidelines, which informs police work nationally, had been unlawfully used to interfere with a man’s freedom of speech.

The guidelines, rolled out six years ago by the College of Policing, state that any action perceived to be motivated by hostility towards religion, race or transgender idenitiy must be recorded “irrespective of whether there is any evidence to identify the hate element”.

Despite police accepting that such incidents are not crimes, they are still logged on a system and can even show up during a DBS check when applying for work.

A total of 119,934 non-crime incidents were formally recorded by 34 police forces in England and Wales between 2014, when the guidance was introduced, and 2019.

By far the most incidents were recorded by South Wales Police, who logged 13,856 cases over the five-year period - exceeding the country’s biggest police force, Scotland Yard, by more than 4,000.

The Metropolitan Police recorded the second most incidents at 9,473, followed by Merseyside Police, at 8,644, and Surrey Police, at 8,256, according to figures obtained under Freedom of Information laws by the Telegraph.

It comes as a former police officer, Harry Miller, won his legal battle against Humberside Police after facing investigation over alleged “transphobic” tweets.

In a landmark ruling, the High Court found the force had a “chilling effect” on the free speech rights of Mr Miller by visiting his place of work and suggesting he may face prosecution.

The married father-of-four was contacted by a ‘community cohesion officer’ last year after a Twitter user complained he had shared a "transphobic limerick".

Mr Justice Julian Knowles compared the actions of the police to the Stasi and Gestapo, as he ruled the tweets were lawful and said there was not “the slightest risk” Mr Miller would commit a criminal offence by continuing to tweet.

The right to hold opinions ranging from the inoffensive to "the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative", he said, was a “cardinal democratic freedom".

"The effect of the police turning up at his place of work because of his political opinions must not be underestimated,” his judgment concluded.

"To do so would be to undervalue a cardinal democratic freedom. In this country we have never had a Cheka, a Gestapo or a Stasi. We have never lived in an Orwellian society."

Clutching a copy of George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four outside court, Mr Miller, 54, hailed the outcome as a “watershed moment for liberty” and vowed to continue tweeting.

His solicitor, Paul Conrathe, claimed the ruling meant it was “entirely acceptable to hold the view and communicate that a trans woman is not a woman”.

“That view is not hateful, transphobic or unlawful,” he said in a statement.

The 65-page judgment said the reaction of the woman who complained about Mr Miller's tweets, named only as Mrs B, was, at times, "at the outer margin of rationality".

The judge said the statement of Mrs B - which suggested Mr Miller would have been antisemitic during the Second World War and that transgender people could "kiss their rights goodbye" if he won the case - represented an "extreme mindset".

He said her evidence "would tend to confirm" the view of an academic expert that "some involved in the transgender debate are prepared to accuse others with whom they disagree of showing hatred, or as being transphobic when they are not, but simply hold a different view".

The case has echoes of recent legal battles over transgender issues, including Maya Forstater, a tax expert who lost her job over alleged “offensive” tweets.

The 45-year-old, who used social media to question government proposals to allow people to self-identify as the opposite sex, took her employer to a tribunal last year.

However, in her case, an employment judge ruled there was no legal right to question whether a transgender person is a man or woman and decided Ms Forstater’s view was "incompatible with human dignity and fundamental rights of others”.

It is expected Friday's case will now be tested at the Supreme Court, after Mr Justice Knowles granted a “leapfrog certificate” to allow it to skip the Court of Appeal stage.

Ian Wise QC, representing Mr Miller, cited non-crime statistics previously revealed by the Telegraph as he asked for the certificate, telling the court: "I say that it is an issue that is inevitably going to go the Supreme Court at some juncture in the near future and there is some urgency about this - these issues are arising on a daily basis."

Mr Justice Knowles rejected Mr Miller's wider challenge to the lawfulness of the College of Police guidance, ruling that it "serves legitimate purposes and is not disproportionate".