Graham Linehan cleared of harassing trans activist but convicted of damaging phone

Father Ted co-creator Graham Linehan at Westminster Magistrates' Court, London.  Picture: Ben Whitley/PA Wire

Father Ted co-creator Graham Linehan has been cleared of harassing a transgender activist on social media but found guilty of criminal damage of their mobile phone outside a conference in London last year.

The 57-year-old flew in from Arizona to appear at Westminster Magistrates’ Court in person on Tuesday where judgment was delivered by District Judge Briony Clarke.

Mr Linehan denied harassing Sophia Brooks on social media between October 11 and October 27 last year, and a charge of criminal damage of their mobile phone on October 19 last year outside the Battle of Ideas conference in Westminster.

Reading a summary of her judgment, the judge said she was not satisfied that Mr Linehan’s conduct amounted to harassment or that the complainant was as distressed as they made themselves out to be.

In one video of Ms Brooks confronting Mr Linehan, the judge said that the activist looked “visibly happy and not distressed”.

She said that Mr Linehan had not tagged the activist in his social media posts, bar one, and that while his comments were “deeply unpleasant, insulting and even unnecessary”, they were not “oppressive or unacceptable beyond merely unattractive, annoying or irritating”.

But the judge found that Mr Linehan had taken Ms Brooks’ phone because he was “angry and fed up”, and had damaged it by knocking it to the ground.

She said that while the offence was not aggravated by the fact the complainant is transgender, it was because they were 17 years old at the time.

Speaking outside court, Mr Linehan said: “The judge found me and the women who gave evidence on my behalf to be credible, honest witnesses, and said that my actions were not criminal and did not constitute harassment.

“The judge commented that the complainant, a well-known trans activist, was not truthful.

“There are a group of dangerous men who are determined to bully women and girls, and to misuse the courts and police in furtherance of a misogynistic agenda.

“I’m proud to have stood up to them and I will continue to do so.” 

He went on: “We have a phrase: punishment is a process, and they like to put people through these kinds of experiences, to make them frightened about standing up to them.

“But I’m hoping that with this judgment, you know, people in future won’t be subject to those kind of tactics.” 

Mr Linehan was fined £500 and ordered to pay costs of £650 and a surcharge of £200 for criminal damage.

His lawyer Sarah Vine KC said that they intend to apply for permission to appeal against the conviction.

The trial heard that Ms Brooks had begun taking photographs of delegates at the event during a speech by Fiona McAnena, director of campaigns at Sex Matters.

Outside the event, the activist asked Mr Linehan: “Why do you think it is acceptable to call teenagers domestic terrorists?” 

In response, the court heard that Mr Linehan had called Ms Brooks a “sissy porn-watching scumbag”, a “groomer” and a “disgusting incel”, with the complainant responding: “You’re the incel, you’re divorced.” 

Prosecutor Julia Faure Walker told the court that Mr Linehan had written “repeated, abusive, unreasonable” social media posts about Ms Brooks, who he referred to as Tarquin.

The comedy writer, who has well-publicised strong views on gender issues, said his “life was made hell” by trans activists, adding that the complainant was a “young soldier in the trans activist army”.

The writer added: “He was misogynistic, he was abusive, he was snide.

“He depended on his anonymity to get close to people and hurt them, and I wanted to destroy that anonymity.” 

After Mr Linehan was convicted of criminal damage, Ms Vine told the court: “The costs to him have been enormous.

“The offence of which he has been convicted was, as you’ve found, a momentary lapse of control.

“It was the culmination of circumstances where the complainant’s conduct, either in respect of Mr Linehan or more widely, could not be described as beyond reproach.” 

She added: “The damage was minor. The process itself has been highly impactful on Mr Linehan.” The prosecution invited the court to consider making a restraining order but this was rejected.

District Judge Clarke said that Linehan was “generally a credible witness”, but that she had some concerns about the complainant, including that Ms Brooks repeatedly used the phrase “alarm or distress” in evidence, which is a legal definition, and was reluctant to say how many X handles they used.

She told the court that her job was to deliver a verdict on the two charges against Mr Linehan, and not on the wider public debate around gender issues.

“It is not for this court to ‘pick a side’ in any matter of public debate,” District Judge Clarke said.

“There is a continuing public debate about the rights of individuals and their sex and gender identity.

“This court is not concerned with that debate and does not have to determine and nor should anything in this judgment be viewed as the court determining any issues in relation to it.”