Graham Linehan on Trial for Harassment & Property Damage : Trial So Far

Linehan said activists had “demonised anyone who stands up to them,” alleging that predatory individuals exploit self-identification to manipulate authorities, with police “doing their bidding.” He described Brooks as “misogynistic,” “abusive” and a “bully,” claiming she had previously harmed others online while operating under anonymity. He said he wanted to expose her behaviour publicly.

Read more: Lucy Connolly Freed 10 Months After Being Sentenced

The trial has already heard that in October 2024 Linehan posted a string of social media messages describing Brooks, whom he referred to as “Tarquin,” as a “deeply disturbed sociopath” and “domestic terrorist,” accusing her of involvement in a disruption at an LGB Alliance event. Video evidence shows the subsequent confrontation outside the Battle of Ideas conference, during which Linehan grabbed Brooks’ phone and threw it into the road. Linehan described the act as instinctive, prompted by provocation and personal comments about his family. He denied intending to incite violence, stating: “The violence and toxicity in the trans debate comes entirely from the trans side.”

Acting Detective Sergeant Thomas Wells, who handled the case, told the court of the extensive reporting by trans activists, quick to claim that the online situation could escalate to “murder.” Messages to police included advocating for Linehan to face large fines, with one activist noting he could crowdfund even £100,000 but advising officers that a significant penalty would deter harassment. The sergeant confirmed Linehan has no criminal record and stressed that im police statements to press his views had been labelled “anti-trans” rather than “Gender Critical,” which he agreed was regrettable.

The defence argued that Brooks herself provoked the confrontation, filming Linehan to extract an apology, and that the phone’s age and prior condition meant any alleged damage could not definitively be attributed to him. Counsel described Brooks’ claims of being “alarmed and distressed” as robotic and vexatious, emphasising her own prior online harassment of others. They argued that Linehan’s online posts expressed sincerely held beliefs and journalistic intent, noting he had alerted police about Brooks’ alleged harassment and publicised her actions at events in a lawful manner.

Linehan’s barrister submitted that no crime of harassment or criminal damage had been proven. They cited the complainant’s credibility, the context of the confrontation, and the absence of private material shared in public posts, formally submitting that the defendant had “no case to answer” on either charge.

Read more: A Vital Civic Lesson: Ignorance of the Law Is Not a Defence

After heated exchanges during cross-examination, including a dispute over the complainant’s gender, the court adjourned until 29 October, with Linehan released on bail.