This week, the Free Speech Union secured a victory for Stephen Bradbury at Derby Magistrates’ Court.
Mr Bradbury was acquitted on Friday, 5th December, after being charged with sending menacing communications, contrary to Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003. He was initially arrested under Section 181 of the Online Safety Act 2023 for sending a communication that threatened death or serious harm. This charge was successfully amended following representations from his solicitor, Daniel Berke.
The case centred on two posts on X in which Mr Bradbury criticised Naz Shah, the Labour MP for Bradford West, after she liked and shared a post from an Owen Jones parody account stating, with reference to the grooming-gangs scandal: “Those abused girls in Rotherham and elsewhere just need to shut their mouths. For the good of #diversity.”
Although Mr Bradbury’s comments could be viewed as offensive, rude, intemperate, and even unpleasant for Ms Shah, the court recognised that freedom of speech is a fundamental democratic right.
Ms Shah gave evidence on 5th December, stating that she interpreted Mr Bradbury’s tweets as a threat. Adam King, who defended Mr Bradbury, cited several past tweets by Ms Shah that had attracted criticism, including one in which she suggested that Israel should relocate to the United States of America.
During the trial, Ms Shah accepted that there is a disproportionate representation of Pakistani men in grooming-gang cases.
When Mr Bradbury was called to give evidence, he explained that he had been venting his frustration at what he viewed as a lack of effective action against grooming gangs. He also described his comments as nonsensical, ridiculous, and “shouting in the wind.”
The judge found Mr Bradbury not guilty on the basis that he had been “ranting” and did not intend to intimidate. The judgment noted that his words needed to be “seen in context,” emphasised that “proportionality was key,” and acknowledged that his statements were “offensive, rude and in some ways disgusting.” Citing the UK’s strong democratic tradition of free speech, the judge ultimately gave Mr Bradbury the “benefit of the doubt,” concluding that his posts were a rant rather than a “deliberate attempt to intimidate.”
Credit must go to Stephen’s barrister, Adam King, and solicitor, Daniel Berke.