𝓤𝓷𝓲𝓽𝓮𝓭 𝓝𝓮𝔀𝓼

Last month marked an important victory for free speech in the UK, as Glasgow Sheriff Court dismissed the charges against Rose Docherty, a 75-year-old Scottish grandmother who was twice arrested for offering consensual conversation within a “buffer zone” outside a hospital in Glasgow. Rose’s case represented the first-ever victory against a prosecution under national “buffer zone” legislation. The outcome, cemented by the Crown Office’s decision this month not to appeal, was a welcome display of common sense in an area where there has been little.

To arrest a 75-year-old grandmother for quietly standing with a sign – and then hold her in custody for hours, denying her a chair despite her double hip replacement – is not merely heavy-handed. It is dystopian. Rose Docherty’s sign read: “Coercion is a crime. Here to talk, only if you want.”

That first sentence directly echoes the principles of Scotland’s own Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018, which rightly criminalises coercive behaviour. When the Act was introduced, Assistant Chief Constable Gillian MacDonald, Police Scotland’s Crime and Protection lead, stated: “Coercive and controlling behaviour can have the most profound, damaging and long-lasting effects on individuals and on our society.” Yet Rose was arrested for highlighting the very same truth.

The second part of her message was even milder: a simple, consensual offer of conversation. No shouting, no approaching anyone, no graphic imagery – just an invitation to talk if someone wished. This is the essence of democratic life: the right of citizens to engage in peaceful, public discussion on matters of profound moral and social importance.

Free speech is not a luxury to be rationed in “buffer zones.” It is the foundation of an open society. When peaceful grandmothers are arrested for holding signs that align with the government’s own stated principles, something has gone badly wrong with the law and its enforcement.

Now consider that her two charges of “influencing” – which is banned within a 200-metre radius of any Scottish hospital – were dismissed because the prosecution failed to allege on the charge that there was a victim and admitted that they had no evidence of there being one.

The dismissal of Rose’s charges is certainly a positive development for freedom of expression – but it is also a stark reminder that poorly-drafted, censorial “buffer zone” legislation, enforced across the UK, is at once dangerous and absurd.

Absurd, because it enables the state to criminalise offering consensual conversation, silent prayer, other peaceful expression, and seemingly even holding certain beliefs in specific locations.

While Rose’s charges have been dismissed, 77-year-old retired Christian pastor Clive Johnston was recently criminally convicted for preaching in a “buffer zone” in Northern Ireland, in a sermon that did not even mention abortion. This week, supported by The Christian Institute, he appealed this conviction.

ADF International continues to support Livia Tossici-Bolt, a retired medical scientist who was ordered to pay tens of thousands of pounds after she was convicted for holding a sign within a “buffer zone” that read: “Here to talk, if you want to.”

We are also supporting Adam Smith-Connor, an army veteran who was also fined for praying silently within the privacy of his mind for three minutes on a public street outside an abortion facility in 2021. Both are currently appealing their cases to the Crown Court.

In Birmingham, Isabel Vaughan-Spruce is awaiting criminal trial. This is the third time she has been criminalised for standing and silently praying inside a “buffer zone”. This time, an officer said Isabel’s “mere presence” could constitute “harassment, alarm and distress” given her public pro-life stance and work.

Regardless of one’s stance on abortion, it is easy to see why “buffer zone” laws are so dangerous: when legislation can be applied so differently by the courts, it weakens the rule of law to devastating effect. When such laws also violate the basic human right to freedom of expression, and have a track-record of silencing those who disagree with prevailing social norms, we are left with a state that imitates the censorship practiced by authoritarian regimes.

This should not be happening in the UK, which has historically valued liberty so highly. For the first time since records began, in 2025 the UK was no longer considered an “Open” country in the Article 19 Global Expression report. Several of our “buffer zone” cases, as well as Pastor Clive’s, are being monitored by the US State Department, which denounced Rose’s February 2025 arrest as “tyrannical”. The world is watching us, and we must respond by affirming freedom, common sense, and the rule of law.

Rose, with our support, is now considering legal action to ensure she is not arrested again for peaceful expression, as she has been in the past. But if the UK is to avoid continuing down the alarming path of censorship and thought-crime, “buffer zone” legislation must be repealed.

In the face of legislative ambiguity that threatens democracy and fundamental freedoms, removes legal certainty and enables the state to act on ideological preferences, the strongest and most appropriate response is a change in the law.

Jeremiah Igunnubole (@JIgunnubole) is a barrister and former Senior Crown Prosecutor with the Crown Prosecution Service, who serves as Legal Counsel for ADF International