This week, the second highest court in the UK will hear the high-profile and seminal legal case of sacked Christian school assistant, Kristie Higgs.
The outcome of the hearing, which begins at the Court of Appeal on Wednesday 2 October, will be determinative of the law on free speech and freedom to express faith in the UK for many years to come, if not decades.
The Court will determine whether it is lawful for an employer to punish employees for private social media posts expressing beliefs on religious, political and moral issues.
The case has significant ramifications for Christian freedom in the workplace and the freedom of any employee to express biblical principles on marriage and family, some of which may express opposition to LGBTQI+ ideology, in public or private, without the fear of losing their livelihoods.
The hearing is the culmination of a five-year legal battle, supported by the Christian Legal Centre, which now involves five interveners including the authoritative official human rights watchdog, Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC).
In its ‘intervention’ in the appeal, the EHRC has told the Court that “a phenomenon” of employers being pressured by third parties to punish employees for exercising free speech has now “become more common”.
EHRC lawyers will argue that labelling Christians who believe that homosexuality is sinful as ‘homophobic’ amounts to “stereotyping” and illegal discrimination. The same principle applies to stereotyping people with ‘gender-critical’ beliefs as ‘transphobic’.
The Court has also given permission for the intervention of the Association of Christian Teachers, Free Speech Union, Sex Matters and the Church of England Archbishops’ Council.
In 2019, Mrs Higgs was sacked for gross misconduct by Farmor’s Secondary School in Gloucestershire, and had her Christian beliefs compared to Neo-Nazism, for two Facebook posts.
The posts were made under her maiden name on a private account to her friends, which had no mention of her employer.
The posts were in response to extreme gender identity books being introduced under the radar to her son’s Church of England primary school.
The first post shared a petition against compulsory sex education. The second post shared an article about the dangers of extreme transgender ideology in children’s books being introduced into UK and US schools.
An anonymous complaint was made about the posts to the headteacher which led to Mrs Higgs’ facing a six- hour interrogation, being investigated, and eventually sacked for allegedly bringing the school into disrepute.
Mrs Higgs launched legal action claiming she had been harassed, directly discriminated against, and had her rights breached under Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR.)
The legal battle that followed was plagued by delay and controversy, with repeated recusals and evidence of transgender bias, with Stonewall and extreme sex education activists sitting as lay magistrates on the presiding panels.
Now that Mrs Higgs and her legal team have overcome all of these nefarious obstacles, the Court of Appeal will now determine to what extent Equality law permits censorship by an employer of an employee’s free speech – specifically, expressions of religious beliefs in private posts on social media.
Profoundly important case
Ahead of the Court of Appeal hearing, Mrs Higgs said: “I wouldn’t want any parent to go through what I have over the past five years. Nobody should be sacked for raising the concerns that I did in the way that I did.
“One of the biggest things for me was that this dangerous and anti-Christian ideology was being introduced into a Church of England school. I could see that what was happening was harmful, and no parents appeared to know about it.
“My posts were a warning and so much of what has happened in the debate over the past five years has vindicated me. Transgender ideology and extreme sex education is harmful to children and should have no place in schools, especially not Christian primary schools.
“I pray now that the Court of Appeal will make the right judgment and will make a ruling that protects Christian employees and parents’ freedom to express their beliefs without fear or being silenced.”
Andrea Williams, chief executive of the Christian Legal Centre, said: “This case is profoundly important for free speech and Christian freedom. Its outcome will set an important legal precedent for many years to come.
“This case has exposed at every stage systemic prejudice against the Christian faith and its teachings. First at her school and then in the courts. Now is the time to put things right.
“The Equality and Human Rights Commission and other organisations are making submissions backing free speech for Christians such as Kristie. Ironically, the only intervener who appears to support the principle of some censorship is the Church of England (CofE)
“This is part of a huge ongoing failure of the CofE to actually stand up for Christian moral teaching in their schools and in the public square. Their latest guidance on how CofE primary schools should deal with transgender ideology in schools reveals that few lessons have been learnt.
“The outcome of this case will be huge and has been a long five-year journey. We have been repeatedly alarmed by the number of activists, diametrically opposed to Kristie and her beliefs, that have appeared on panels which should rule impartially on her case. What has been exposed should concern us all and what it tells us about our court system.
“We pray now for justice for Kristie and that there will be a ruling that not only protects Christian freedoms, but also protects freedom for everyone in the UK.”
Further background
In October 2018, Mrs Higgs shared two posts on her private Facebook page under her maiden name. Her profile did not mention and had no links to her employer.
Mrs Higgs had made the posts after discovering that the Church of England (CofE) school attended by her child (not the school where she was employed) planned, under the radar, to introduce ‘No Outsiders’ books on confusing and harmful gender identity. The books included ‘My princess boy’ and ‘Red: A crayon’s story’.
The first post encouraged friends and family to sign a petition challenging the government’s plans to introduce Relationships and Sex Education (RSE) to children in primary schools. The petition was not created by Mrs Higgs.
The post flagged that a government consultation on plans to make RSE mandatory for children as young as four was coming to a close. It asked its readers to sign a nationwide petition calling on the government to uphold the rights of parents to have children educated in line with their religious beliefs.
A similar petition was subsequently signed by over 115,000 people and was debated in Parliament.
In the second post, Mrs Higgs shared an article from Judybeth.com on the rise of transgender ideology in children’s books in American schools and added her own comment: “This is happening in our primary schools now.”
The article critiqued the same LGBT ‘No Outsiders’ books promoting transgenderism to children in her son’s school.
Since Mrs Higgs made these posts, her concerns have been vindicated.
In 2023, then Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, ordered an urgent review into the extreme and sexualised materials being used in RSE.
In December 2023, the government released the long awaited draft transgender guidance for schools which said: “Other pupils, parents and teachers may hold protected religious or other beliefs that conflict with the decision that the school or college has made, these are legitimate views that must be respected.”
The guidance adds that schools and colleges now have specific legal duties that are framed by a child’s biological sex.
One anonymous complaint
Mrs Higgs has said that her aim at the time in 2018 had been to raise awareness among parents of the Government’s education plans and the transgender books being taught in primary schools.
However, one anonymous complaint about Mrs Higgs’ posts were made to the headteacher of Farmor’s Secondary School, Matthew Evans, where she had worked as a pastoral administrator without complaint for seven years.
The email said: “…a member of your staff who works directly with children has been posting homophobic and prejudiced views against the lgbt community on Facebook … [and] that this individual may exert influence over the vulnerable pupils that may end up in isolation for whatever reason. I find these views offensive and I am sure that when you look into it, you will understand my concern. …”
Mr Evans responded to the complainant saying it would be helpful to forward screenshots of “any similarly offensive posts”. The complainant emailed back, attaching screenshots of other Facebook posts made by the claimant, further explaining:
“I’m aware that not everyone has liberal views like myself but I do feel that people working directly with children should refrain from posting this type of view on social media. I know of several children at Farmors who might fit into the category of person your staff member seems to find so obnoxious, friends of my children even. …”
Lawyers representing Mrs Higgs have since argued in court that the ‘stereotyping’ of Mrs Higgs’ beliefs by the anonymous complainant was far more discriminatory than anything she had posted.
Six-hour interrogation
Mrs Higgs was subsequently suspended and, shaking and tearful, was ordered to leave the school premises.
An investigation report followed which recommended she be dismissed for gross misconduct because:
“By choosing to make the posts and stating that she believes in God’s Law and not Man’s Law, I believe that, on the balance of probability, this means that she holds views that are discriminatory against groups of people with protected characteristics.”
The report added that: “On the balance of probability this would be interpreted that she holds illegal discriminatory views that are not in line with the Equality Act 2010 and therefore has breached the Conduct Policy”.
Sacked for gross misconduct, Mrs Higgs was accused of ‘illegal discrimination’, ‘serious inappropriate use of social media’, and ‘online comments that could bring the school into disrepute and damage the reputation of the school.’
No evidence has ever been found that her posts brought the school into disrepute.
Subjected to a six-hour interrogation during a disciplinary hearing, Mrs Higgs’ posts, and the Christian beliefs that had shaped them, were described as akin to that of a ‘pro-Nazi right-wing extremist.’
After launching legal action, an Employment Tribunal ruling in October 2020, however, found against Mrs Higgs, tenuously judging that the school had been right to dismiss her as someone reading her posts could have perceived and concluded that she was ‘transphobic’ and ‘homophobic.’
Lawyers appealed this ruling, arguing that it ‘erred in law’, was ‘perverse’ and that: “no reasonable and informed person, having read the [Mrs Higgs’] post, could conclude anything other than the posts were a critique of a certain approach to education, whether held by members of the LGBT community or non-LGBT secular liberals.”
Double recusal
Mrs Higgs’ appeal of this ruling and pursuit of justice has faced a series of unusual and, at times, unprecedented obstacles.
In July 2022, Mrs Higgs’ appeal was postponed after Mrs Justice Eady was forced to recuse trans activist, Edward Lord, from sitting as a lay member on the presiding panel.
It transpired that Lord, associated with Mermaids and Stonewall, had made a series of public statements relating to key issues in Mrs Higgs’ case, including the extent to which individuals should be restricted from making comments or statements regarding LGBT ideology, especially transgenderism.
In January 2023, it was also revealed in the media that senior members of the CofE and the judiciary had met at an undisclosed date to discuss Mrs Higgs’ case. The motivations, reasoning and details for such a high-level meeting are not known.
Lightning struck twice in March 2023, when in the lead up to the rescheduled appeal hearing following Edward Lord’s recusal, it was discovered that Andrew Morris, the former Assistant General Secretary of National Education Union (NEU), would be presiding as a lay member.
Under Mr Morris’ watch, during the time frame that the government is set to urgently review its ‘inappropriate’ sex education guidance, the NEU consistently took a strong position in favour of making both relationship and sex education mandatory in primary schools.
The NEU at this time was also a national leader in encouraging teaching children at primary schools about same-sex relationships and transgenderism.
Another activist on panel unearthed
It can now also be revealed that at Mrs Higgs’ original employment tribunal hearing in September 2020, which she lost, another activist was on the presiding panel as a lay magistrate.
Evidence online reveals that Mrs Debbie England, described as a Human Resources Specialist, is a Stonewall advocate.
A presentation by Sums Consulting for Higher Education, called ‘Recruiting the Right Team’, features Mrs England and says:
‘Debbie led UWE’s equality and diversity team, during her tenure UWE achieved highest Higher Education Sector ranking in Stonewall index and Athena Swan accreditation at both University wide and departmental levels.’
From 2013-22, Mrs England was also an advisor Common Purpose, a non-profit that promotes equality and diversity and the advancement of the LGBTQI+ community, with promotional ‘about us’ videos that include the Pride flag.
If known at the time, a recusal application would have been highly likely.
This is a recurring theme, with a series of recusals over a ‘perception of bias’ in other high-profile Christian freedom cases this year, with one leading to a formal rebuke.
Court of Appeal
Following the recusals in Mrs Higgs’ case, President of the Employment Appeal Tribunal, Mrs Justice Eady, was forced to hear the appeal ‘judge alone’.
Justice Eady subsequently granted Mrs Higgs permission to appeal the original tribunal ruling, but instead of allowing all of her grounds of appeal to proceed, she denied her an outright win by ruling that the case should be remitted back to the Employment Tribunal to be heard again.
Higgs’ lawyers appealed this ruling with Rt. Hon. Lady Justice Elisabeth Laing earlier this year, allowing the case to proceed on all grounds to the Court of Appeal.
Hearing details
More information about watching the livestream of Kristie’s hearing can be found here.
Find out more about Kristie Higgs
