Dorset Pensioner on trial for offering to talk to women in crisis pregnancies 

  • Livia Tossici-Bolt held a sign reading “Here to talk, if you want to” near an abortion facility in Bournemouth
  • Local authorities have charged the retired scientist for breaching a censorial “buffer zone”; ADF UK supports her legal defence 

BOURNEMOUTH (10 March 2024) – A retired medical scientist from Bournemouth is facing trial following charges relating to her charitable work supporting women in crisis pregnancies. 

 

Livia Tossici-Bolt, 62, held a sign reading “here to talk, if you want to” near an abortion facility in Bournemouth. While she held the sign, several individuals did approach Tossici-Bolt to discuss issues they were facing in their lives. 

 

Local authorities confronted Tossici-Bolt, alleging that she had breached a local abortion “buffer zone”, which bans expression of approval or disapproval of abortion. They issued a Fixed Penalty Notice, which Tossici-Bolt refused to pay, on the grounds that she did not breach the terms of the PSPO, and had the right, protected under Article 10 of the Human Rights Act, to offer consensual conversations.

 

The Bournemouth, Christchurch & Poole Council have proceeded to charge the volunteer, who awaits a trial date at Poole Magistates’ Court. Her legal defence is supported by ADF UK. 

"There’s nothing wrong with offering help. There’s nothing wrong with two adults engaging in a consensual conversation on the street. I shouldn’t be treated like a criminal just for this."

- Livia Tossici-Bolt, whose legal defence is being supported by ADF UK

“We all condemn harassment. But “buffer zones” are going so far even to criminalise activities which are peaceful and helpful. For several years now, I have been offering a helping hand to women who would like to consider other options to abortion, and pointing them to options where they can receive financial and practical support, if that’s what they would like. There’s nothing wrong with offering help. There’s nothing wrong with two adults engaging in a consensual conversation on the street. I shouldn’t be treated like a criminal just for this,” said Livia Tossici-Bolt, whose legal defence is being supported by ADF UK.

Government deliberate on free speech

In 2023, the UK government passed legislation in the Public Order Act to enforce censorial buffer zones around all abortion facilities, banning any form of “influence”.  

 

The Home Office have issued draft guidance to clarify that the right of women to engage in consensual conversations of their own free will remains protected, as does the freedom to pray inside one’s own mind. Two MPs have approached the Home Office demanding that the guidance be changed to cease protecting both of these rights. 

“Under vaguely-written local “buffer zone” measures, we have seen volunteers like Livia criminalised simply for offering help to women in need; and others dragged through courts for praying, even silently, in their minds.  

 

The principle of freedom of thought and speech must be defended both within and outside ‘buffer zones’. The Home Office have sought to keep our country in line with international law by protecting freedom of thought and of consensual conversation in the draft buffer zone guidance. It is vital, for the preservation of democracy, that this stands,” commented Jeremiah Igunnubole, legal counsel for ADF UK, who are supporting Tossici-Bolt’s legal defence.  

 

 

Livia Tossici-Bolt with Jeremiah Igunnubole, Legal Counsel for ADF UK, the organisation supporting her legal defence

A second attempt to charge the pensioner for carrying out charitable work

Bournemouth, Christchurch & Poole Council have recently apologised for causing Livia Tossici-Bolt to feel “distressed and harassed” when officers wrongfully attempted to move her from a public street on another occasion. 

 

Tossici-Bolt was standing alone and holding a sign reading “Pregnant? Need help?” with a helpline number for women in crisis pregnancies. 

 

In a moment captured on video, officers confronted Tossici-Bolt, accusing her of standing inside Bournemouth’s censorial “buffer zone”, which criminalises “expressions of approval or disapproval of abortion”.  

YouTube

By loading the video, you agree to YouTube's privacy policy.
Learn more

Load video

The authorities have since acknowledged that she was not within the censored “buffer zone” on this occasion but claim the map she brought with her to indicate her position was “confusing”. The map, in fact, was a replica of the map found on the council’s own website. 

 

“Livia was interrogated for praying and offering charitable help even outside of a buffer zone on one occasion – exposing the reality of the slippery slope of censorship. If the state is allowed to criminalise the mere holding of prolife viewpoints within certain public spaces, on what basis can we object to criminalisation in all public spaces?  

 

The purported blanket bans on prayer and consensual conversations were never about the prevention of harassment and intimidation – after all, in the UK, not a single pro-life vigil volunteer has been convicted for harassment and intimidation in over 40 years of prolife presence near abortion facilities,” said Jeremiah Igunnubole, legal counsel for ADF UK.

Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only

Police settle case brought by Christian pastor they tried to forbid from “commenting on any other religion”

  • Christian leader receives settlement from police who wrongfully tried to ban him from criticising alternative worldviews, such as atheism and Islam
  • Avon & Somerset Police concede their restrictions on expression were “disproportionate” after successful challenge backed by ADF International and the Free Speech Union

BRISTOL (27 February 2024) – Avon & Somerset Police Force have conceded their restrictions on free speech were “disproportionate” after unlawfully censoring Christian leader, Dia Moodley, a Bristol-based pastor and father of four.

The police force had issued a warning notice to Moodley, who has engaged in occasional street evangelism for the past five years, which forbade him from, inter alia, “passing comments on any other religion or comparing them to Christianity” and “passing comments on beliefs held by Atheists or those who believe in evolution”.

A claim for damages was backed by ADF UK and Free Speech Union, who instructed solicitors from Ai Law.

“It isn’t for the police to decide which religions or worldviews can be free from criticism. When I preach, I am committed to speaking about the good news of Christianity in love, grace, and truth – but that doesn’t mean that I will never say something that others may disagree with. The nature of a free and democratic society is that we can speak publicly about our beliefs.

Thankfully, with support from ADF UK and the Free Speech Union, I have received some measure of justice after having been wrongfully silenced by authorities. But this creeping culture of censorship is detrimental to all of us in society, whatever we believe, and we must challenge it wherever we see it,” commented Dia Moodley, who successfully challenged police after they forbade him from speaking freely about his Christian beliefs – and comparing them to other religious views – in public.

A breach of free speech

Moodley had initially reached out to the Avon & Sommerset Police Force after being the victim of several incidents of racial abuse, at the advice of Bristol-based charity Stand Against Racism and Inequality. Officers began to regularly attend Moodley’s public preaching in order to protect both the pastor and his congregation.

In October 2021, Moodley arranged a meeting with the neighbourhood police force in order to maintain good working relations. However, at this meeting, the pastor was served with the warning notice, which he refused to sign.

In addition to forbidding criticism of religions other than Christianity, the warning notice further encroached on Moodley’s right to freedom of expression by banning him from “delivering a sermon or religious address at a time or place that has not had prior consent and approval of Avon & Somerset Constabulary.”

Backed by ADF International and the Free Speech Union, Moodley successfully challenged the Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Police for discrimination on religious grounds and for breaching his ECHR rights to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; freedom of expression; and freedom of assembly and association.

Commenting on the case, Bryn Harris, Chief Legal Officer for the Free Speech Union, said: “The state does not hold a monopoly on truth and the ability to discuss and debate ideas, including religious ideas, is the lifeblood of any genuinely free society. Yet, repeatedly, we see this principle violated by unaccountable police officers and local councils who aggressively pursue their own ideological causes rather than using scarce public resources to tackle real crime.”

Upon receiving news of the settlement, Jeremiah Igunnubole, Legal Counsel for ADF UK, said, “Dia Moodley’s case exposes a clear double standard in British policing when the issue concerns the expression of core beliefs; particularly Christian beliefs. Bristol authorities unabashedly requested prior review of Dia’s sermons and banned him from speaking about any other religion – including atheism. This blatantly restricted his freedom of religion and speech in an attempt to redefine established British values in accordance with their own ideals.

Whilst we welcome the police force’s admission that their actions were disproportionate, it is crucial that the laws permitting such flagrant violations of freedom of speech are urgently addressed to prevent the need for Dia and others like him from being embroiled in years of legal proceedings only to defend what should have instantly been recognised as their lawful, peaceful and constitutional rights to speak freely in public.”

Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only

Two MPs push for further crackdown on silent prayer despite outcry over “thought crime” arrests

  • MPs have approached the Home Office demanding a change to draft guidance on “buffer zones” to censor silent thoughts within 150m of abortion facilities 
  • Politicians ignore public outcry over incidents of arrests for silent prayer in the past year; ADF UK have supported the legal defence of 3  individuals charged over “thoughtcrime” 

LONDON (3 February 2024) – Labour’s Rupa Huq and Conservative Sir Bernard Jenkin reportedly met with the Home Office this week to demand a stronger crackdown on silent prayer occurring within 150m of abortion facilities.

Parliament voted to introduce “buffer zones” as part of the Public Order Act 2023, with vague legislation which would prohibit all forms of “influencing” within a large area of public space near the abortion facility.

The draft guidance issued by the Home Office clarified that the prohibition would not concern silent prayer, nor consensual conversations between adults within the zone. International law requires the UK government to protect freedom of thought as an absolute right. The right to engage freely and consensually in conversations is protected by the fundamental right to freedom of speech.

“The relentless efforts of MPs to further target silent prayer expose the falsity that this campaign is about preventing harassment. We all agree that harassment is wrong, it has always been unlawful and the police have indicated they have the tools to deal with it. In demanding changes to the guidance to ensure it captures prayer, these MPs have unwittingly exposed the reality of who they were seeking to target in the first place,” said Jeremiah Igunnubole, Legal Counsel for ADF UK.

Public Outrage at arrests for silent prayer

The guidance follows various incidents within the past year where, under existing laws, local authorities have introduced local “buffer zones”, and individuals have been arrested merely for praying silently in their minds.

Last year, a video of charitable volunteer Isabel Vaughan-Spruce caused public outrage after she was arrested for saying that she “might be praying inside [her] head.” The footage was viewed over 15 million times on X (formerly Twitter).


Vaughan-Spruce was charged for her thoughtcrime but fully vindicated at Birmingham Magistrates’ Court, who found her “not guilty”. Under the ambiguous language of the Public Order Act, Isabel could potentially face criminal penalties on the basis of the thoughts in her mind in future.

Mounting concerns over UK “thought policing”

“I’ve been arrested twice and fully vindicated by a court verdict that upheld my freedom of thought, and yet even still, officers can continue to interrogate me for the simple act of thinking prayerful thoughts on a public street. This isn’t 1984, but 2023. No matter one’s beliefs on abortion, nobody should be punished merely for the prayers they hold inside their head.

Ahead of the new ‘buffer zones’ law being implemented, there is an urgent need for clarity as to everybody’s right to freedom of thought, as is protected in international human rights law. The Home Office’s draft guidance at least affirms that nobody should be criminalised on the basis of their thoughts alone. This is obvious common-sense protection for basic rights that must be upheld,” said Isabel Vaughan-Spruce.

On a different occasion, a Catholic Priest was arrested and charged for holding a sign within a buffer zone reading “praying for free speech”. With support from ADF UK, Father Sean Gough was found “not guilty”.

In a third instance in November 2022, a father of two and army veteran, Adam Smith-Connor, was criminally charged for praying about his own experience of abortion in a “buffer zone”. Over a year from when Adam committed his “thought crime”, he still awaits his trial. ADF UK is supporting his legal defense.

“Over the past 18 months, ADF UK hasresponded to an unprecedented need to support members of the British public facing criminal penalties or trials based merely on the thoughts that they held in their head. The UK must abide by its human rights obligations, under which nobody should be criminalised for their thoughts. It’s vital that we maintain this most basic standard of a liberal democracy. Once we allow for thought to be policed on one issue area, the precedent has been set for these abuses to proliferate.

Nobody should ever face harassment or aggression outside an abortion facility. But the law must protect the rights of those who are there to peacefully live out their convictions through offers of help or even silent prayer. It’s imperative that the Home Office respect these basic principles when finalizing its guidance,” said Jeremiah Igunnubole, legal counsel for ADF UK, the organisation which supported Vaughan-Spruce’s legal defence.

Scotland looks to imprison parents for refusing to “transition” their children

  • ADF UK reacts to government proposals that could jail parents for up to seven years for refusing to “transition” their child
  • Christian leaders raise concerns new law could censor even pastoral support

EDINBURGH (11 January 2023) – Scots could soon find themselves facing jail time if found to be attempting to “change or suppress” another person’s “gender identity,” including in a family setting. 

In a vague and wide-reaching attempt to ban so-called “conversion therapy,” parents who are deemed “controlling” or considered to have “pressured” their child to “act in a particular way” when it comes to “gender identity” could be committing a crime. Criminal penalties could result if the actions cause “fear, alarm, and distress”. 

The legislative proposals, published this week for public consultation, give the example of “preventing someone from dressing in a way that reflects their sexual orientation or gender identity” as an action that could become illegal if repeated on two or more occasions. The threshold for criminality could still be met regardless of whether a parent believed they were acting in their child’s best interests.  

Penalties for such a crime include imprisonment for up to seven years, an unlimited fine, or both. 

Though LGBT-identifying people are already protected from verbal and physical abuse by existing law, the new proposals seek to criminalise a much broader set of actions – including what may be intended as a thoughtful challenge or loving advice, should this behaviour occur more than once and be deemed “coercive” (seeking to change a person’s mind regarding “gender identity”). 

Explaining their rationale, the government proposals state: “…the evidence from those with lived experience tells us that the most common form of conversion practices in Scotland is that of a series of “informal” actions conducted over a period of time.” 

Severe threat to religious freedom 

Church leaders across denominations in Scotland have raised concerns that the vague and ambiguous wording of the proposed new law could also punish Christians who offer mainstream pastoral care, advice, or opinion in good faith. The law, if passed, could violate the basic human rights to religious freedom and free speech, in addition to the rights of parents. 

To prevent instances that cause subjective “harm” but do not meet the threshold of criminality, the government additionally would create a new “civil protection order”. The order could grant courts sweeping powers to curtail the free speech of individuals. 

Lois McLatchie Miller, ADF UK spokesperson for Scotland, reacted to the proposals: 

“Common-sense parenting is not a crime. Under these draconian proposals, the Scottish government would place parents under a terrifying and well-founded fear of losing their children or being locked up in prison for saying something contrary to the favoured ideology of the day. The proposed law would violate fundamental human rights, starting with the right and duty of parents to protect their children, in addition to religious freedom and free speech rights, including for those in a position to give pastoral support. 

Children are not adults, and parents are not children. The vast majority of parents are committed to doing the sometimes difficult job of raising their children well. They deserve support and protection, not suspicion. Many hold firm, science-based beliefs in the immutability of biological sex. They have concerns grounded in the real-life testimonies of those who felt pushed into life-altering decisions that proved to be no solution. Parents must be supported to raise their children; not criminalised for protecting them.”