Background to the Document

The Community Safety Strategy 2023-26 (Year 2 Refresh) is a policy document produced by Brighton & Hove City Council’s Community Safety Partnership. It outlines the Council’s approach to tackling crime, anti-social behaviour (ASB), hate incidents, extremism, and safeguarding issues. The document serves as a framework for local law enforcement, social services, and community organisations, setting priorities for intervention and enforcement.

As part of Brighton & Hove’s broader commitment to inclusivity and community protection, the strategy addresses a range of social concerns, including domestic abuse, hate crime, anti-social behaviour, and extremism through the Prevent strategy. It draws upon national legislative frameworks, including:

• The Equality Act 2010 – Protecting individuals from discrimination based on protected characteristics.
• The Public Order Act 1986 – Governing offences related to hate speech and harassment.
• The Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 – Establishing the statutory Prevent duty.
• The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) – Safeguarding freedoms of speech, religion, and belief.

The strategy is particularly notable for its emphasis on addressing hate crimes and extremism, reflecting Brighton’s status as a progressive and diverse city. However, some definitions and policies outlined in the document raise concerns regarding free speech, religious freedom, and the potential for subjective enforcement against lawful expression of beliefs.

This document updates the existing 2023-26 strategy, refining policies based on emerging trends in crime and extremism while continuing Brighton & Hove’s commitment to community cohesion and safeguarding vulnerable groups. It remains a key reference for local agencies, influencing how policies on hate crime, radicalisation, and ASB are enforced at a city level.

The Archbishop’s Response

In response to the Brighton & Hove Community Safety Strategy 2023-26 (Year 2 Refresh), The Most Reverend Dr. Jerome Lloyd, Titular Archbishop of Selsey, offers a critical assessment of the document, highlighting potential risks to religious freedom, free speech, and the fair application of counter-extremism policies.

While acknowledging the Council’s commitment to public safety and community cohesion, the Archbishop raises concerns about the strategy’s broad definitions of hate incidents, anti-social behaviour (ASB), and extremism under Prevent. He warns that aspects of the policy may inadvertently infringe upon lawful religious expression, criminalise traditional moral teachings, and create a chilling effect on faith-based discourse.

This response seeks to ensure that the final strategy is both legally robust and balanced, protecting all protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010, while safeguarding fundamental rights to belief, worship, and expression. The Archbishop urges Brighton & Hove City Council to amend the strategy in line with UK law and human rights obligations, ensuring that it serves as a genuine tool for community safety, rather than an instrument for ideological enforcement.

---

Subject: Feedback on the Draft Community Safety Strategy 2023-26 (Year 2 Refresh)
To: Brighton & Hove City Council – Community Safety Partnership
From: The Most Reverend Dr. Jerome Lloyd, Titular Archbishop of Selsey
Date: February 11th 2025

Dear Members of the Community Safety Partnership,

I write to you as a religious leader, community representative, and advocate for the fundamental freedoms of belief, expression, and conscience. While I recognise and commend the Council’s commitment to promoting safety and community cohesion, I am deeply concerned that aspects of the Community Safety Strategy 2023-26 (Year 2 Refresh) risk infringing upon the lawful expression of religious beliefs, restricting freedom of speech, and disproportionately targeting certain faith-based and ideological communities.

Religious institutions and faith communities have long played a vital role in maintaining peace, moral responsibility, and social welfare in Brighton & Hove. However, the strategy’s definitions of hate incidents, anti-social behaviour (ASB), and the Prevent strategy could unjustly restrict religious expression and disproportionately affect faith-based individuals and organisations. I urge the Council to reconsider these elements and to ensure the final strategy upholds legal protections for free speech, religious freedoms, and balanced application of counter-extremism measures.

1. Inadequate Protection of Religious Beliefs under the Equality Act 2010

The Equality Act 2010 protects individuals from discrimination based on religion or belief. However, the strategy appears to prioritise gender identity over religious freedoms, creating a real risk of suppressing lawful religious expression.

• The strategy defines hate incidents as “any incident which the victim, or anyone else, thinks was motivated by hostility or prejudice based on a person’s race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or transgender identity” (p.34)[1]. This broad, perception-based definition lacks necessary legal safeguards and could lead to faith-based teachings on marriage, sexuality, and gender being wrongly classified as hate incidents.
• The strategy does not reference Forstater v CGD Europe (2021), which affirmed that beliefs in the immutability of biological sex—many of which are rooted in religious doctrine—are protected under the Equality Act[2]. Many faith traditions uphold the theological view that God created humanity male and female (Genesis 1:27). The omission of this recognition risks penalising individuals and institutions for expressing foundational religious beliefs.

Recommendation: The strategy should explicitly state that lawful religious expressions, including traditional teachings on sex and gender, are protected under the Equality Act 2010 and cannot be classified as hate incidents unless they meet a legal threshold of harassment, abuse, or incitement to violence.

2. Overreach in Hate Incident Definitions—Threatening Religious Expression

The strategy’s definition of a hate incident as “any incident perceived as motivated by hostility” (p.34)[1] does not comply with UK case law.

• In Miller v College of Policing (2021), the Court of Appeal ruled that recording non-criminal hate incidents based on perception alone violates free speech rights under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)[3].
• If a church, mosque, or synagogue teaches traditional beliefs on marriage, gender, or morality, individuals could claim they feel “distressed,” leading to the incident being wrongly recorded as hate-related—despite no crime being committed.
• The recording of non-criminal hate incidents against religious individuals and groups risks creating a chilling effect, where believers feel they must self-censor or refrain from public discourse on moral issues.

Recommendation: The strategy must align with Miller v College of Policing (2021) and state that perception alone does not determine hostility. It should clarify that lawful religious teachings and expressions of faith cannot be classified as hate incidents unless they meet an objective legal threshold.

3. Prevent Strategy—Potential for Overreach into Religious Expression

The Prevent section of the strategy presents serious concerns regarding religious freedom, free speech, and academic liberty.

• The strategy seeks to manage “a diverse spread of narratives and beliefs that may be used to motivate and support terrorist violence, including conspiracy theories, anti-establishment narratives, [and] targeting of political leaders/public servants” (p.41)[1].
• Concerns:
  • Vague definitions of extremism: The phrase “a diverse spread of narratives and beliefs” could lead to religious moral teachings, traditionalist political views, and critiques of government policy being labelled as radical or extremist.
  • Targeting of Faith-Based Speech: Religious doctrines that uphold sex-based distinctions, the sanctity of marriage, or critiques of secular ideologies could be wrongly classified as extremist or radicalising.
  • Disproportionate focus on right-wing extremism: The strategy downplays Islamist extremism, despite the Independent Review of Prevent (2023) confirming that Islamist radicalisation remains the UK’s primary terror threat[4]. Selective enforcement undermines the credibility and fairness of Prevent measures.

Legal Issue
The Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 requires that Prevent be applied proportionally and not infringe on legal religious or political speech. The Brighton Prevent strategy fails to provide safeguards against ideological bias, increasing the risk of faith-based viewpoints being unfairly targeted[5].

Recommendation:

• Prevent definitions must align with legal standards and exclude broad, subjective categories such as “anti-establishment narratives.”
• Explicit protections for religious expression should be included, affirming that lawful faith-based critiques of social policy do not constitute extremism.

4. Risk of Suppressing Academic and Religious Debate

• The Williamson v Secretary of State for Education (2005) ruling upheld that religious schools have the right to teach their beliefs, even if they contradict mainstream views[6]. The Prevent strategy in Brighton must not override these legal protections.

Recommendation:

• The strategy must include a commitment to uphold academic freedom and free speech in educational and religious institutions.
• Prevent training should clarify that expressing lawful religious or political beliefs is not inherently a risk factor for radicalisation.

Conclusion

Key concerns include:
✅ Overly broad definitions of extremism that could criminalise dissent.
✅ Selective targeting of right-wing narratives while downplaying Islamist extremism.
✅ Threats to free speech, religious freedom, and academic debate.
✅ Pressure on faith-based schools and institutions to conform to state ideology.

Without safeguards, Prevent risks becoming a tool of ideological enforcement rather than a counter-terrorism measure.

Sincerely,

The Most Reverend Dr. Jerome Lloyd
Titular Archbishop of Selsey

Footnotes

1. Brighton & Hove City Council, DRAFT Community Safety Strategy 2023-26 (Year 2 Refresh).
2. Forstater v CGD Europe (2021) – Employment Appeal Tribunal ruling on gender-critical beliefs.
3. Miller v College of Policing (2021) – Court of Appeal ruling on non-criminal hate incidents and freedom of expression.
4. Independent Review of Prevent (2023) – UK Government findings on counter-terrorism failures.
5. Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 – Legal obligations on proportional application of Prevent.
6. Williamson v Secretary of State for Education (2005) – Supreme Court ruling on religious freedom protections.