OfS criticised by High Court for ‘closed mind’ as freedom of speech fine overturned

The High Court overturned a record £585,000 fine (72-page / 974KB PDF) imposed on the University of Sussex by the Office for Students (OfS), which had claimed the university’s governing documents failed to uphold freedom of speech and academic freedom.

The decision, by Mrs Justice Lieven, criticised the regulator for its ‘closed mind’ approach in dealing with the investigation, and not looking into whether the alleged breaches had been remedied before the fine was issued.

Stephanie Connelly, an expert in higher education disputes with Pinsent Masons, said the ruling provides important clarification on the scope of the regulator’s powers in relation to freedom of speech and academic freedom.

“In particular, the High Court’s decision to adopt a narrower interpretation of what constitutes a university’s ‘governing documents’ will be welcomed by many institutions seeking greater certainty about the regulatory framework within which internal policies are being assessed,” she said.

“The judgment also highlights the importance of regulatory process. The court examined carefully how the OfS reached its conclusions, emphasising the need for open‑minded decision‑making and proper engagement with the evidence, including steps taken by providers to address identified concerns.

“Those aspects of the judgment are likely to influence how future investigations are conducted, especially where enforcement action has the potential to carry significant financial and reputational consequences.”

Following the ruling Professor Sasha Roseneil, vice-chancellor and president of the University of Sussex, said she would look to meet with the education secretary over the ruling.

”The University has always maintained that the OfS adopted an erroneous and absolutist approach to freedom of speech, that it deliberately ignored comprehensive protections of academic freedom and freedom of speech at Sussex, and that it prosecuted its torturous three and a half year-long investigation with a ‘closed mind’,” she added.

“I am delighted that Sussex’s foundational commitments to academic freedom and freedom of speech have been recognised by the High Court, and that the OfS’s egregious decision against the University, and the fine it sought to impose, have been overturned.

“The University of Sussex has a proud history of being the place where the most contentious issues of the day are aired – where independent-minded, critical thinkers develop their ideas, and where lively and engaged students work out how they understand the world.”

The fine was imposed by the OfS after an investigation linked to academic Dr Kathleen Stock’s departure from the university, following protests by students over her views on biological sex and gender, with the regulator concluding that the university’s Trans and Non-Binary Equality Policy Statement did not meet the freedom of speech and academic freedom governance principles in its regulatory framework.

However, the court ruled the regulator had not correctly defined what “academic freedom” meant in applying the fine.

“Even if the OfS had had jurisdiction, the OfS misdirected itself on the meaning of ‘freedom of speech within the law’ and ‘academic freedom’, and failed to have proper regard to the protective effect of the University’s Freedom of Speech Code of Practice,” Mrs Justice Lieven wrote.

She added: “In any event, the finding of breach in relation to both conditions was vitiated by bias because the OfS approached the decision with a closed mind and had therefore unlawfully predetermined the decision.”

Josh Fleming, interim chief executive of the OfS, said they were disappointed by the ruling and would carefully consider the consequences of the judgment before deciding on next steps.
‘Our focus remains on students and the sector, and we are pleased that following our investigation a dozen institutions, including the University of Sussex, have amended policies which restricted freedom of speech,” he added.

“As a result, students and academics should feel greater confidence in their ability to engage in the free and frank exploration of thought that characterises English higher education.

‘It’s important to stress that this case – and the OfS’s investigation – is not about the substance of ongoing debates around sex and gender. Freedom of speech extends to all sides of this and other subjects; we work to protect lawful speech irrespective of its content. 

‘Ensuring free and robust debate is fundamental to the continuing success of higher education in England, and the OfS’s new complaints scheme will help make sure we can take swift action where free speech rights are restricted.’

However, Julian Sladdin - a higher education expert with Pinsent Masons - said the ruling would make for uncomfortable reading for the regulator.

“Although some of the jurisdictional points raised may be superseded by changes introduced under the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023, which came into force in August 2025, this does not address the High Court’s strident criticisms of flaws in its regulatory processes,” he said.

“Those aspects of the judgment not only diminish confidence in the integrity and fairness of the OfS’s processes but will also require a material change on the part of the OfS in how future investigations are conducted, especially where enforcement results in disproportionate financial and reputational consequences for higher education providers.”