Dr Webberley Responds: Linehan v Brooks đ˛
Was his behaviour unacceptable, or just unattractive, annoying and irritating?
He was arrested and charged with harassment and criminal damage. What happened?
The Background
In October 2024, TV writer Graham Linehan, well known for his âgender-criticalâ views, posted a series of comments on social media about a young trans woman, Sophia Brooks. Sophia subsequently approached Linehan outside a conference venue to challenge him about his behaviour. An altercation followed in which Linehan took her phone, threw it, and damaged it.
The case came before District Judge Briony Clarke in November 2025. Two questions were before the court: did Linehanâs social media posts amount to harassment, and did his actions with the phone constitute criminal damage?
The Facts
The social media posts: Linehan admitted making the posts. They were described as being âdeeply unpleasantâ, âinsultingâ, âoppressive and unacceptableâ. Sophia said she was alarmed and distressed by them.
The confrontation: When Sophia approached Linehan at the conference venue, the exchange became heated. Linehan snatched her phone, threw it, and it was damaged. He said he was acting to prevent Sophia from harassing him.
The Ruling
On harassment: The judge found that while Linehanâs posts were deeply unpleasant, they did not meet the criminal threshold for harassment. In law, harassment must be âconduct that is oppressive and unacceptable beyond merely unattractive, annoying or irritating.â
The judge noted there was no obvious evidence that Sophia was distressed or alarmed, her behaviour didnât demonstrate this, she hadnât blocked or muted Linehan, and her own online conduct wasnât perfect. The posts were regrettable and unattractive, but not criminal.
On criminal damage: Linehan was found guilty. He took the phone deliberately, threw it, and it was damaged as a result. His defence (that he was preventing Sophia from harassing him) failed. The judge found he could simply have walked away.
The judge noted that the continuing public debate about sex and gender identity was not the remit of that court on that day.
My View
Disgusting behaviour. From any human being towards another, especially when your actions are fuelled by antagonistic views towards a minority group.
But was it criminal? This is where we have to be careful. Being vile online doesnât automatically make something a crime. The judge clearly disapproved of what Linehan wrote, and so do I, but disapproval and criminality are different things.
What troubles me is the practical advice this case offers to anyone facing online abuse: donât engage, walk away, block them, report if it crosses the line into harassment or hate crime. Thatâs sensible advice, but it also places the burden on the person being targeted. It also leaves a lot of unpleasant behaviour in a grey zone, not criminal, but also not acceptable.
As for Linehanâs conduct at the confrontation: you cannot snatch and throw someoneâs phone just because you find them annoying. The judge was right. He should have just walked away.
I have no doubt that all humans have the right to live as themselves, to live authentically, and to live without being abused or hurt. Letâs work together to achieve this.
Over to You
Where do you think the line should be drawn between speech that is offensive and speech that is criminal? Does our law protect us? Iâd love to hear your thoughts. Please share them in the comments below.
This is part of a series examining cases, commentary and hearings concerning gender identity. If you have a case or article youâd like me to review, get in touch.