Key Definitions

Someone who is either: 

an employee of the University or other person working for the University under a contract of employment, including, without limitation, a fixed-term contract, a zero-hours contract, an hourly-paid contract or other type of casual or atypical contract of employment; or 

an individual who has entered into or works under any other contract, whether express or implied and (if it is express) whether oral or in writing, whereby the individual undertakes to do or perform personally any work or services for another party to the contract whose status is not by virtue of the contract that of a client or customer of any profession or business undertaking carried on by the individual. 

A person undertaking, or with a binding offer to undertake, a course of study or a programme of research (i) at the University of Wolverhampton or (ii) that leads to an award granted by the University of Wolverhampton and in either case this may include a trainee or apprentice. 

‘Student’ also includes students not on credit-based programmes, or students on courses provided through franchising or validation arrangements with the University of Wolverhampton as a registered provider with the Office for Students. In these types of arrangement, the University will owe its ‘secure’ and ‘code’ duties to students on courses provided through a franchising or validation arrangement with an unregistered provider. However, the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 does not require providers or constituent institutions to take steps to secure freedom of speech in respect of their activities outside England 

Freedom of expression is relevant to, but should not be confused with, the important principle of academic freedom. Academic freedom relates to the intellectual independence of academics in respect of their work, including the freedom to undertake research activities, express their views, organise conferences and determine course content without interference.  

As part of our duties under Article 10 and the s.43 duty, we must protect the freedom of expression of academics and staff. Student complaints and protests will not result in us imposing limits on course content or speaker events organised by lecturers. We will also take steps, such as providing support to our staff, where necessary to make sure, that the pressure of student complaints does not lead to self-censorship of academic work. We must also ensure that our internal policies (for example, policies to comply with the Prevent duty) do not unduly inhibit academic freedom. 

As a University we must take steps to ensure the safety of students, members, employees and visiting speakers, for example, under their common law duty of care.  

The s.43 duty does not require us to protect free speech at the expense of the safety of staff, students or speakers. 

For example, it would be reasonable for the University to cancel an event if the participants would not be safe from physical harm, for instance, if there was a threat of violent protests. However, we would need to show that no ‘reasonably practicable’ steps, such as increased security (within reasonable cost) could have been taken.  

Speech can be limited if it would break criminal law. Some of the criminal offences that  

may occur in relation to speech include:  

• speech causing fear or provocation of violence
• acts intended or likely to stir up hatred on grounds of race, religion or sexual orientation
• speech amounting to a terrorism related offence, and
• causing a person harassment, alarm, or distress.

There are some situations where civil law provides protection against offensive or harassing behaviour. These include discrimination or harassment under the Equality Act 2010. It may be that certain views are lawful to express but are unlawful in certain contexts such as in the workplace. 

Harassment under the Equality Act 2010 is unwanted behaviour related to certain protected characteristics, which has the purpose or effect of: 

• violating a person’s dignity, or
• creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for that person.

Whether or not behaviour is harassment is not just based on the view of the person making the complaint. The courts consider whether it is reasonable for the behaviour to have that effect, as well as the circumstances. They must balance competing rights, including the right to freedom of expression of the person responsible. 

The harassment provisions cannot be used to undermine academic freedom. Students’ learning experience may include exposure to course material, discussions or speaker’s views that they find offensive or unacceptable, and this is unlikely to be considered harassment under the Equality Act 2010. 

Also, if the subject matter of a talk is clear from material promoting an event, then people who attend are unlikely to succeed in a claim for harassment arising from views expressed by the speaker 

Views expressed in teaching, debate or discussion on matters of public interest, including political or academic communication, are therefore unlikely to be seen as harassment, even if they are deeply offensive to some of the people who are listening, as Article 10 will protect them. 

As a University we must ensure we do not discriminate in the way we organise events.  

In some situations, a discriminatory act may breach a person’s freedom of expression as well as the Equality Act 2010 

Direct discrimination is when an individual is treated less favourably because of a protected characteristic. For example, refusing to let female attendees ask male speakers questions would restrict their right to freedom of expression as well as directly discriminating against them based on their sex. 

Indirect discrimination can arise where a policy applies to everyone but disadvantages a particular group or individual due to a protected characteristic. If this happens, the policy will not be unlawful if the person or organisation applying the policy can show that there is a good reason for it – that is, that it is 'a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim'. 

The term ‘hate speech’ is widely used but does not have any legal meaning. Generally, it describes forms of expression that incite violence, hatred or discrimination against other people and groups. Whether or not hate speech falls outside the protection of Article 10 and is unlawful depends on the context of what is said and when. 

The criminal law balances the right to freedom of expression with the protection of individuals and communities from threats, abuse and harassment both on and offline. Where this line is crossed, the perpetrator may be prosecuted.  

A list of the criminal offences used to prosecute offending behaviour, often described as ‘hate crimes’ is includes: 

Laws that place limitations on freedom of expression in England and Wales include: 

Crime and Disorder Act 1998 

• racially or religiously aggravated offences (sections 29-32)

Offences Against the Person Act 1861:  

• threat to kill (section 16)

Public Meeting Act 1908: 

• endeavour to break up a public meeting (section 1)

Public Order Act 1986: 

• fear or provocation of violence (section 4)
• intentional harassment, alarm or distress (section 4A)
• harassment, alarm or distress (without intent) (section 5)
• acts intended or likely to stir up hatred on the grounds of race (sections 18-23);

religion (sections 29B-29F); or sexual orientation (sections 29B-29F) 

Serious Crime Act 2007: 

• encouraging or assisting the commission of an offence (sections 44-46)

Terrorism Act 2000: 

• incitement to commit acts of terrorism overseas (section 59)
• inviting or encouraging support for a proscribed organisation (section 12)

Terrorism Act 2006: 

• encouragement of terrorism (section 1) including the glorification of the commission or

preparation of terrorism (sub-section 1(3)) 

• dissemination of terrorist publications (section 2)
• encouragement of terrorism and dissemination of terrorist publications via the internet

(section 3) 

A proscribed organisation is one that has been officially banned, usually due to its involvement in terrorism or activities considered harmful to national security. Proscription makes it illegal to belong to, support, or promote the organisation. This is a key item to check when considering inviting external speakers or organisations on to campus. Please visit the government link to receive up to date information  

Proscribed terrorist groups or organisations - GOV.UK 

The "secure" duty regarding freedom of speech, particularly in the context of higher education in the UK, refers to the legal obligation on universities and other providers to take reasonably practicable steps to ensure that lawful speech is not restricted or suppressed. This duty is enshrined in the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023. It means that providers must actively work to protect free speech, including that of visiting speakers and students, within the bounds of the law.  

Here's a more detailed explanation: 

• "Secure" Duty: This duty goes beyond simply not interfering with free speech; it requires active measures to ensure that it can be exercised.  
• Reasonably Practicable Steps: Providers must take steps that are feasible and appropriate in the circumstances to protect free speech. This includes considering factors like the nature of the event, the venue, and potential risks, but not allowing irrelevant factors like the viewpoint of the speaker to unduly influence decisions.  
• Within the Law: The secure duty applies to speech that is lawful. Restrictions on speech that are already permitted by law (e.g., laws against hate speech or incitement) are not affected by this duty.  
• Examples of Actions: This could involve ensuring venues are available, providing security, or having clear procedures for handling complaints about speech.  
• Academic Freedom: The duty to secure freedom of speech also includes securing academic freedom, which encompasses the freedom of academics to question, and test received wisdom, and to put forward new and controversial ideas.  
• Office for Students: The Office for Students plays a key role in overseeing and regulating this duty, ensuring that providers are taking appropriate steps.  
• Complaints Scheme: A complaints scheme is in place to allow individuals to raise concerns about potential breaches of the duty to secure freedom of speech 

To meet the s.43 duty, we would need to consider if there are reasonably practicable steps, we can take to ensure lawful speech is protected. 

Steps might include: 

• challenging high-risk speakers with opposing views
• having an independent chairperson to facilitate an event and make sure a range of viewpoints can be heard
• filming an event to deter the use of unlawful speech
• putting additional security in place
• ticketing an event to avoid non-student violent protest
• requesting to see any promotional materials before the event
• having a policy setting out principles of respectful discourse that speakers must follow
• supporting and encouraging the SU and student body to host debates
• training staff on how to facilitate well-balanced debate, and
• postponing the event if necessary to enable one or more of the steps above to be taken

The University may need to consider whether to restrict speech if it interferes with its essential functions. 

These functions include: 

• learning 
• teaching 
• research 
• administration necessary for the above. 

Restrictions for these reasons should, wherever possible, restrict the time, place and manner of the speech rather than the views expressed. 

For instance, this may mean that protesters with a lawful point of view can be stopped from intruding into classrooms if they are going to disrupt a lecture or tutorial. However, it may be less likely that they can be stopped from (for instance) setting up stalls or handing out leaflets in an open space outside any classroom, if this does not disrupt teaching, learning or research.   

In the example above, the university could, for example, offer the protesters an alternative space that does not affect its essential functions.  

Negative steps related to freedom of speech at a university refer to actions or policies that restrict or undermine the free expression of ideas within the academic community. These steps can include censoring speakers, restricting student groups' activities, or creating an environment where students and faculty feel pressured to self-censor their views.  

Examples of negative steps include: 

• Censoring or disinviting speakers: Universities may cancel or restrict appearances by speakers whose views are deemed controversial or offensive, even if their views are lawful.  
• Restricting student groups: Universities may impose restrictions on the activities of student groups, particularly those that express unpopular or dissenting opinions.  
• Creating a chilling effect: Policies or practices that create a climate of fear or intimidation can lead to self-censorship, where individuals refrain from expressing their views for fear of reprisal.  
• Imposing ideological tests: Universities may implement policies that require applicants or staff to adhere to specific ideological viewpoints, which can restrict academic freedom and freedom of speech.  
• Using non-disclosure agreements (NDAs): Universities may use NDAs to silence individuals who have experienced harassment or misconduct, preventing them from speaking out.  
• Failing to defend free speech: Universities may not adequately defend the rights of individuals to express their views, especially when faced with criticism or opposition.  
• Prioritizing safety over free speech: Some universities may prioritize safety concerns over freedom of speech, leading to restrictions on events or speakers that could potentially cause discomfort or offense.  
• Implementing "no platforming" policies: These policies restrict speakers with certain viewpoints from appearing on campus.  
• Creating "safe spaces" that discourage open debate: While intended to provide comfort, some safe spaces may inadvertently create an environment where dissenting opinions are not tolerated.  

These negative steps can have a detrimental impact on academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas, which are crucial for a healthy university environment. 

The University may need to consider whether to restrict speech we have a concern about physical safety. 

If speech could lead directly to a specific danger, then it may not be permitted or we may need to restrict how, when or where the speech occurs. 

If, for example, a controversial speaker invited to speak at a university has received credible threats on their life, the university could consider hosting the event online rather than in person and limiting who can attend.  

Other factors are unlikely to be relevant to whether the University can restrict speech. For example, the viewpoint that the speech expresses. This includes whether the viewpoint: 

• reflects the values of the University  
• is controversial or offensive 
• meets with the approval of external or internal groups at the provider. 
• Any impact the speech might have on our reputation would not usually be a reason for us to restrict the speech. 

Includes all land, buildings, facilities, and other property in the possession of, or owned, leased, used, supervised or controlled by the university.  

Some Universities and Students Unions have ‘safe space’ policies, which aim to create welcoming, inclusive environments on campus, and ensure that people with a particular protected characteristics are free from harassment and discrimination. In some cases, safe spaces also refer to meetings of individuals sharing protected characteristics (e.g. a women’s group or LGBT+ group) where only people sharing that characteristic can attend. 

Safe spaces have been cited as a reason why freedom of expression may be restricted. Creating a ‘safe space’ is not unlawful, but care will be taken by the University when applying any policies in a ‘blanket manner’, for example, across campus, to make sure they do not restrict freedom of expression. 

A person who was invited to speak at the University, or who would have been invited had there not been a restriction on this or does not include a person who wanted or requested an invitation to speak but was not invited. It may include a person whose invitation has not been approved through our internal approvals process.