Law Professor, Bristol University, all opinions own: free speech, public protest, privacy, ECHR, counter-terror law; platform regulation; UK constitution
Joined August 2012
- Tweets 22,905
- Following 1,799
- Followers 6,386
- Likes 4,629
164 Photos and videos
Pinned Tweet
12 Jan 2022
Many thanks to the School for putting this together. The article on suspects' privacy rights, the presumption of innocence and the tricky relationship with defamation is open access here: tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.… @davidallengreen @JoshuaRozenberg; @pollycurtis; @Haroon_Siddique
12 Jan 2022
Should suspects be anonymous until charge?
New research from @Prof_Phillipson & @RobertCraig3 was repeatedly used to influence a landmark @UKSupremeCourt privacy hearing against financial news giant Bloomberg last month.
Find out more in our news item➡️bit.ly/3GpCkxW
3
4
36
Govt appeal allowed incl on Windsor Framework ground but *not* because no power to disapply legislation enacted subsequently to the Withdrawal Act (in this case the 2023 Act). Rather the SC found no breach of Art 2(1) WF; hence the disapplication issue did not arise (para 138)
1
3
1,447
Astonishing that the British Right *still* appears to think that the only question we should ask when the US asks us to jump is ‘How high?’ No matter if the US’s latest war is illegal, reckless and deeply unpopular here: being a US lackey is their sole priority.
3
520
It could, though do note that Carole's assertion about the law is comprehensively wrong.
Feb 20
I can imagine this could be used as an argument by the government to abolish jury trails.
1
2
923
This is not correct. Under the Contempt of Court Act the offence is committed by publications that cause a substantital risk of serious prejudice or impediment to the proceedings: legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/198…
Feb 19
PREDICTION: If Andrew is charged (no assumption of guilt etc), we are going to have a crisis of both the press & judiciary.
In Britain, it is an offence to publish ANY info on defendant beyond bare facts.
But! US outlets can print whatever they like…
1/
6
1,375
This indicates no change whatever to the UK constitution. It is only primary legislation - Acts of Parliament - that are shielded from legal challenge by the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty.
Feb 13
For the record I think the proscription of Palestine Action as it it is ISIS was dumb and counterproductive.
But *MPs voted to do it*.
Why can a court overturn a literal Parliamentary vote? This is nuts. Our constitution has been shredded to bits.
2
12
1,892
Will be a privilege to have Natalie talking about her much discussed book here at @BristolUniLaw!
Thank you @Prof_Phillipson for hosting a discussion on my new book "Hate Speech and the European Court of Human Rights" @BristolUni. If you are in the Bristol area on the 26th February do sign up!
eventbrite.co.uk/e/hate-spee…
@SpeechFuture
1
1
463
9 Oct 2025
Keenly anticipating this...
9 Oct 2025
Popcorn at the ready🍿for the Craig v Craig celebrity death match at the Oxford PDLG on 15 October 12.30-2 to discuss my book *Royal Law: Prerogative Foundations*! Paul Craig and Charlotte Sayers-Carter discussants. Its **HYBRID** so all are welcome. Link to follow. Retweets 🙏
1
1
1,018
9 Sep 2025
The ‘readers context’ note here is misleading, conflating the non-applicability of the Parliament Act procedure (a legal restriction on the Lords) with the broad constitutional principle recognising the primacy of the Commons
7 Sep 2025
The Lords has an important duty to scrutinise, but it also has a constitutional duty to respect the primacy of the Commons, which has twice backed this Bill.
MPs listened to dying people; reflected the public mood. Families up & down the country now call on Peers to follow suit.
Community note
The assisted dying bill is a private members bill, not Government legislation; it did not appear in the Government’s election manifesto and it has not been passed by two consecutive sessions of the House of Commons. The House of Lords is not obliged to pass it. commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-brief…
2
1
4
1,078
9 Sep 2025
It’s not misinformation. The basic general principle that the Lords should and does recognise the primacy of the Commons applies as much to this Bill
as any other.
8 Sep 2025
Would you believe it (yes), here's the Comms Director of Dignity-in-Dying blatantly sowing misinformation that favours her own cause - the House of Lords is entirely within constitutional rights to vote down assisted death bill. See publiclawforeveryone.com/202…
1
2
763
9 Sep 2025
I very much doubt this is the case. The offence of expressing an opinion or belief supportive of a proscribed organisation dates from the 2000s. I suspect only actual membership of the BUF was an offence in 1939/40.
9 Sep 2025
I find the age point about the Palestine Action protestors a bit of a red herring.
When the British Union of Fascists was proscribed in 1939, you would have been arrested for holding up a sign saying, 'I support the BUF'. Whether you were over or under 60 was surely irrelevant?
1
1
2
742
9 Sep 2025
I think this is correct, constitutionally.
7 Sep 2025
The Lords has an important duty to scrutinise, but it also has a constitutional duty to respect the primacy of the Commons, which has twice backed this Bill.
MPs listened to dying people; reflected the public mood. Families up & down the country now call on Peers to follow suit.
Community note
The assisted dying bill is a private members bill, not Government legislation; it did not appear in the Government’s election manifesto and it has not been passed by two consecutive sessions of the House of Commons. The House of Lords is not obliged to pass it. commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-brief…
1
1
474
9 Sep 2025
It being a PMB makes no difference to the core reason the Lords defers to the Commons - its unelected status. (the relevance of manifestos doubtful these days). Curious to see opponents of judicial power arguing it's fine for an unelected House to thwarting the democratic will.
7 Sep 2025
Unsurprisingly the head of comms of @dignityindying is peddling constitutional falsehoods. This is a PMB. It's not in any manifesto. It's not been passed twice by the House of Commons in two consecutive sessions. The House of Lords has no duty to defer.
5
1
10,863
26 Jun 2025
Very much looking forward to reviewing both these exciting new books, by Profs Paul Wragg and @ProfTomkins respectively
1
2
6
1,754
26 Jun 2025
In this case, with the polls where they are, and Labour having the majority it does, presumably its MPs would laugh at any threat to dissolve Parliament and hold an election. Perhaps what is meant is that Starmer would resign personally as PM if he lost the welfare reform vote?
25 Jun 2025
I'm very proud to have worked on the repeal of the Fixed Term Parliament Act
Since that repeal, a confidence vote does not need to follow an explicit formula and the PM retains the power to designate any vote as being a confidence matter
1
1
3
1,186
20 Jun 2025
This
19 Jun 2025
I am prepared to shock and offend students by telling them that are not three rules of statutory interpretation.
504
5 Jun 2025
Such a law would merely have the effect, as in the US, of handing the judiciary all the power to determine what restrictions on free speech (for e.g. conspiracy, perjury, private libel, endangering national security, revenge porn, doxing, inciting violence etc) were permitted.
4 Jun 2025
Here’s my suggestion for a UK Free Speech Charter, modelled on the First Amendment of the US constitution.
Would it really be too much to ask?
1
629
5 Jun 2025
The offence of inciting hatred on grounds of religious belief states that it cannot be read 'in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or...beliefs or practices of adherents'
4 Jun 2025
Here’s my suggestion for a UK Free Speech Charter, modelled on the First Amendment of the US constitution.
Would it really be too much to ask?
1
1
2
825
22 May 2025
Unfortunately being grossly offensive online *is* a crime: legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/200… The last Govt should have asked Parliament to repeal this offence when the Online Safety Act was passed. It didn't and the police are enthusiastically enforcing it thetimes.com/uk/crime/articl… @IanDunt
21 May 2025
Advocates of free speech must defend Lineker’s tweets from this type of investigation; being offensive is not a crime.
telegraph.co.uk/football/202…
1
8
943
Gavin Phillipson retweeted
21 May 2025
Less than 2 weeks to go until this event on 3 June at LSE with Lord Sales, @tarunkhaitan, @DrTomPoole and chaired by David Kershaw. Hybrid, so all welcome in person or online.
14 May 2025
First launch is Moot Court Room, 6-7.30pm, 3 June at @lselaw with Lord Sales, UKSC, Tarunh Khaitan @tarunkhaitan, Tom Poole @DrTomPoole chaired by David Kershaw, Dean of LSE Law School. Huge thanks to LSE for hosting - its a hybrid event. lselaw.events/event/book-lau…
2
5
9
2,443