Legal challenge over hate crime recording can proceed, High Court rules
Harry Miller is taking legal action against the Home Office and Lincolnshire Police
A former police officer can proceed with a legal challenge against the Home Office and a police force over the recording of hate crimes, a High Court judge has ruled.
Harry Miller is taking legal action against the department and Lincolnshire Police, claiming that the Government’s “crime recording rules for frontline officers and staff” (CRR) are unlawful.
Mr Miller, who describes himself as gender critical, discovered last year that he had a hate crime logged against him in 2024 following a complaint about him to the police by a trans woman, despite never being charged with an offence.
In legal documents setting out his claim, barristers for Mr Miller claim that the CRR are unlawful as they are “contrary to the basic common law principles of fairness, natural justice, transparency and good administration, and the need to prove a criminal charge to the criminal standard of proof”.
They also claim that the rules do not provide “adequate safeguards” to prevent a “chilling effect” on freedom of speech.
It is also claimed that Lincolnshire Police acted unlawfully by failing to inform Mr Miller that it was recording a hate crime against him, and that doing so was “irrational”.
Mr Miller is asking the High Court to declare the CRR unlawful and to cancel the police record against him, while the Home Office and Lincolnshire Police are defending the claim.
In a court order issued on Wednesday, Mrs Justice Hill allowed the claim to proceed to a full hearing later this year, after finding that the challenge was “arguable”.
Ian Wise KC, for Mr Miller, said in court documents that his client discovered that a hate crime was recorded against him following online posts about him by Lynsay Watson, a trans woman who was sacked from Leicestershire Police for gross misconduct in October 2023.
Following her dismissal, a post from Mr Miller’s Fair Cop campaign account welcomed the sacking and said there was a “culture within policing that demonises those of us who do not subscribe to the politics of gender”.
Mr Wise said that in October 2024, Mr Miller was voluntarily interviewed by Lincolnshire Police over a possible offence under the Online Safety Act.
Police decided the following month that no further action would be taken, but Mr Miller discovered in September 2025 that a hate crime of “stalking involving serious alarm or distress” had been recorded against him.
Mr Wise said that this had caused Mr Miller “significant anxiety and distress”.
He said: “The claimant did not have any opportunity to understand the nature of the allegation in respect of which the hate crime has now been recorded and any evidence said by Lincolnshire Police to support it, nor has he had an opportunity to respond in any way to the allegation.”
Mr Wise continued that there was “no lawful basis for the recording of a hate crime” against Mr Miller, but that the CRR stipulated that crimes should be recorded “solely on the information provided in the victim’s report, not any other investigation”.
The CRR therefore mean that crimes are recorded on “the balance of probabilities”, the barrister said, and include an “incoherent and inadequate set of safeguards for freedom of expression”.
Mr Miller said that the argument that he “presented no credible evidence to suggest the offence had not taken place” was a “straw man” as he was not asked about it.
James Gardner, from law firm Conrathe Gardner LLP, representing Mr Miller, said the CRR were “sinister” and said it was “absurd, and terrifying” that individuals “can have serious crimes recorded against them without any police investigation”.
Lincolnshire Police declined to comment. The Home Office has been approached for comment.