Case Summaries
Back to Case SummariesFree speech - CS082607
Case summary August 2026 | Not Justified
A student complained to their provider about its decision to allow an international guest speaker to attend an event. They said that the speaker’s involvement in the event presented a substantial risk of radicalising attendees, and that the provider had failed to act in accordance with its Prevent duties. The provider did not uphold the student’s complaint. It said it had balanced Prevent with its duty to uphold freedom of speech.
The student complained to us because they thought the provider had disproportionately focused on freedom of speech when making its decision. We did not uphold the complaint (we decided it was Not Justified).
The speaker was not part of any proscribed organisation, they were permitted to enter the UK and there were no UK court findings against them. The provider therefore concluded that there was nothing to indicate that the UK Government or courts regarded the speaker as a terrorist or as having engaged in unlawful speech. The police had also been involved in planning and facilitating the event, and hadn’t intervened or raised concerns about any remarks made by the speaker.
We decided that it was reasonable for the provider to have focused on its duty to uphold freedom of speech. There was evidence to show it had balanced this with its Prevent duties – which also require providers to be mindful of the need to protect freedom of speech, whilst having due regard to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism.