A 72-year-old Christian evangelist has been found not guilty at City of London Magistrates’ Court after being prosecuted for distributing an evangelical Gospel tract in Soho.
Richard Johnson, who has been supported by the Christian Legal Centre, was prosecuted under section 4A of the Public Order Act 1986 after copies of the illustrated tract “Doom Town” were distributed in April 2025.
The tract retells the biblical account of Sodom and Gomorrah and applies an evangelical Christian message about sin, judgment, repentance and salvation.
Two complainants said they were distressed by the tract’s treatment of homosexuality and LGBT issues.
One complainant told the court that Soho should be regarded as a “safe space” for LGBT people, arguing in effect that the area ought to be protected from messages viewed as hostile to that community, creating what Mr Johnson’s legal team described as a de facto “gay buffer zone”.
The Crown Prosecution Service relied on this context in advancing its case. It is believed to be the first time the CPS has pursued a prosecution of this kind on the basis of such a geographical “safe space” argument.
No separate legal standard applies in Soho, however. Mr Johnson’s barrister, Michael Phillips, argued that the same rights to freedom of religion and freedom of expression apply there as in every other part of London, and that the criminal law cannot create areas where lawful speech is judged by a different standard simply because it is unpopular with a particular audience.
Following a full-day trial on 4 September 2026, the magistrates acquitted Mr Johnson of all charges. The court concluded that, although they judged the material to be offensive and had caused upset, the prosecution had not proved all the elements of the criminal offence – in this case that the high threshold required before freedom of expression can be restricted and to the recent High Court decision in DPP v Coskun [2026] EWHC 427 (Admin), concerning the burning of a Qur’an outside the Turkish Consulate.
A defence costs order was also granted.
From a troubled past to Christian evangelism
In his evidence, Mr Johnson’s described being sexually abused at boarding school as a child and later engaging in same-sex sexual activity for many years. He later married and has a stepson and step-grandchildren. In his mid-50s he became a born-again Christian, left his former bisexual lifestyle, wanted to tell others of the miracle in his life and the peace he had found and began evangelising wherever he went.
Since 2007, Mr Johnson says he has distributed Christian literature throughout England and Europe. He estimates that he has handed out well over 100,000 Gospel tracts, has had many positive conversations and has seen around ten people become Christians through his evangelism. Before this prosecution, he says he had never been arrested or warned by police for distributing tracts.
Events in Soho
On 14 April 2025 Mr Johnson had spent about two hours at the British Library researching Bibles before travelling through the West End. His evidence was that he was carrying scores of tracts of different kinds and had already distributed many of them across Soho. The majority had nothing to do with homosexuality and included tracts dealing with alcoholism, for example.
As he passed Comptons in Old Compton Street, he handed several tracts to men outside and described himself as someone who had previously lived a homosexual lifestyle before becoming a Christian. He then continued towards Chinatown.
Two younger men followed him into Rupert Street, shouting and telling him to ‘get out of Soho’. He said they appeared furious, that people began to stop and watch and that he feared he might be punched. After a short exchange he left the area. Later that day he received several voicemail messages.
“Safe space” argument and Speakers’ Corner
A striking feature of the trial was the emphasis placed on Soho itself. The first complainant who attended court, described Soho as a “safe space” for LGBT people and said the tract had been directed at his community. The prosecution’s closing case relied on the fact that Mr Johnson had deliberately taken material dealing with homosexuality into that particular area.
Mr Johnson’s legal team understood the Crown’s submission to go further: that the context of Soho as an LGBT “safe space” meant speech there could properly be judged differently from controversial speech delivered in a traditional forum such as Speakers’ Corner.
Mr Phillips submitted that the criminal law cannot create areas in which one community is effectively protected from encountering religious or moral views with which it strongly disagrees. The issue for the court was not whether the message was welcome in Soho, but whether the prosecution had proved the ingredients of section 4A beyond reasonable doubt.
Complainant angry and offended
One of the complainants gave evidence at the start of the trial. He described the tract as shameful and inflammatory and repeatedly said that reading it made him angry. He objected to its treatment of AIDS, the Sodom and Gomorrah narrative and its teaching on homosexuality. The defence cross-examined him on the distinction between anger and offence on the one hand, and the statutory concepts of harassment, alarm or distress on the other.
The court heard that Mr Johnson had not handed the leaflet to the complainant personally. A friend gave it to him after others had followed Mr Johnson from the vicinity of Comptons.
The complainant later telephoned the number written on the tract and left a message saying that he considered the leaflet disgusting and would report Mr Johnson to the police. He then returned to the pub and continued his day.
Second charge collapses after hearsay application refused
The second complainant did not attend court. He had found a copy of the tract on a window sill at the French House and had not seen or spoken to Mr Johnson.
The Crown applied to have his statement admitted as hearsay under section 114 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Mr Phillips, however, opposed the application, submitting that a witness who was otherwise available should not be excused from attendance simply because of work commitments.
The court refused the hearsay application and the prosecution offered no evidence on that charge.
Expert evidence admitted despite Crown objection
The prosecution also sought to exclude the evidence of defence expert Dr Martin Parsons. The court admitted his evidence and heard him on the biblical and evangelical context of “Doom Town”. Dr Parsons explained the relationship between the tract and Genesis 19, the use of dramatic presentation in evangelistic literature and the distinction between describing biblical judgment and calling for violence against LGBT people.
The defence argued that the tract had to be read as a whole. It contains severe language about sin and judgment, but it also presents the Christian message that salvation is open to everyone who repents. Mr Johnson accepted in evidence that he would not use the tract again, but maintained that his purpose in distributing it had been evangelism, not hatred or intimidation.
Court: offensive speech did not establish the offence
In giving its decision, the magistrates accepted that the first complainant had been genuinely angry and upset and that the tract was offensive. They also considered Mr Johnson’s deliberate decision to distribute it in Soho and his desire to persuade LGBT people to repent and turn to Christianity.
However, the court found that the prosecution had not established all of the statutory elements. In particular, it found no threatening conduct and did not regard the material as crossing the high threshold required for criminalising expression. The court referred to Coskun and the principle that strong offence does not, without more, convert controversial expression into a public order offence.
Freedom to speak in every part of London
The acquittal raises a wider issue about whether areas associated with particular communities can be treated as zones in which different standards of lawful expression apply. The defence case was that Soho can be both a place in which LGBT people feel at home and a place in which evangelical Christians remain free peacefully to express traditional Christian beliefs. Neither community has a monopoly on the public square.
Mr Johnson’s case was not that religious speech is immune from the criminal law. It was that the same law must be applied everywhere, and that the criminal threshold cannot be lowered because a message is delivered in a place where it is particularly unpopular. The magistrates’ acquittal confirms the need to distinguish between expression that is offensive and expression that satisfies the elements of a criminal public order offence.
Following his acquittal, Mr Johnson said: “After nearly 2 years of having this hanging over me, I am glad to be free. I do this because I really love LGBT people and I want them to go to heaven and not hell. Love is telling people the truth, even if people are offended by the message.”
Andrea Williams, chief executive of the Christian Legal Centre, said: “We welcome this clear and important acquittal. Richard Johnson should never have endured nearly two years with a criminal prosecution hanging over him simply for peacefully distributing a Christian Gospel tract.
“The prosecution’s reliance on Soho being an LGBT ‘safe space’ was deeply troubling. No part of London can become a censorship zone in which lawful Christian beliefs are subjected to a different standard because some people find them offensive. Freedom of religion and freedom of expression belong to everyone, everywhere.
“The court was right to recognise the high threshold that must be crossed before the message of the bible is criminalised. Richard did not threaten or intimidate anyone. He was sharing a biblical message about sin, repentance and salvation which Christians have proclaimed for centuries.
“A free society must protect the right to express beliefs that challenge, provoke or offend. The police and Crown Prosecution Service must learn urgent lessons from this case and stop dragging peaceful Christian evangelists through the criminal courts.”