Three police forces called in to probe Allison Pearson tweet

Three of Britain’s biggest police forces were involved in the investigation into a Telegraph journalist’s social media post.

Allison Pearson, an award-winning writer, is being investigated by Essex Police for allegedly stirring up racial hatred in a social media post last November.

The force has refused to tell her any details about which post on X, formerly Twitter, is being investigated, or who made the complaint against her.

Two police officers called at her home at 9.40am on Remembrance Sunday to tell her she was under investigation and invited her to a voluntary interview. She was told, however, that the officers were not allowed to disclose the specific focus of the inquiry.

The scale of the investigation has now become clear, with officers from the Metropolitan Police, Sussex Police and Essex Police all having handled the complaint over the past year.

The Telegraph understands that the post was reported to the Metropolitan Police as a potential breach of the Malicious Communications Act in November last year. The case was then passed to Sussex Police, which marked it as a possible non-crime hate incident (NCHI) as well as a potential malicious communication.

Sussex Police passed it to Essex, where Pearson lives. It is understood Essex made two assessments of the complaint before opening an investigation under section 17 of the Public Order Act 1986, relating to material allegedly “likely or intended to cause racial hatred”, and visiting her house.

The move has prompted a major backlash from senior MPs, a leading barrister and Elon Musk, the world’s richest man, amid claims it is an “Orwellian” over-reaction and a potential threat to free speech.

Writing for The Telegraph, Geoffrey Robertson, a prominent human rights lawyer who founded the respected Doughty Street Chambers, said an investigation should only proceed “if damage has demonstrably been done during the time it was up” before it was “quickly deleted”.

He added: “It is silly to blame the Government, or the Home Secretary, for what may simply be a case of over-zealous or under-competent policemen. But it is right to watch closely and consider whether the quickly deleted opinion could be such as to justify the intervention of the state.”

He warned that the state had no right to “suppress” free speech “unless it is intended to incite violence or is so inflammatory that it is likely to do so”.

On Thursday night, Musk, who now owns X, described the investigation as “crazy”. He had weighed into the row earlier in the week, writing: “This needs to stop.”

Priti Patel, the former home secretary and now the shadow foreign secretary, claimed Labour had allowed its MPs to post “hateful and insulting content with impunity” while journalists were “falling victim to the sinister efforts of some to curtail free speech”.

She made the comments after Dawn Butler, a Labour MP, shared a social media post accusing Kemi Badenoch of representing “white supremacy in blackface”. Sir Keir Starmer said she “shouldn’t have said what she did” but resisted calls to strip her of the whip.

Essex has said Pearson’s alleged offence is being treated as a criminal matter, and not a non-crime hate incident.

Pearson said she was told on Sunday that it was a non-crime hate incident as well as allegedly inciting racial hatred. Essex Police has accused The Telegraph of presenting “wholly inaccurate information” as fact.

On Thursday, day Downing Street confirmed that the Home Office is reviewing how police record non-crime hate incidents to ensure that free speech is protected and officers are not distracted from their core task of fighting crime.

However, the Prime Minister’s official spokesman backed police recording non-crime hate incidents where it was “proportionate and necessary” to do so in order to help prevent serious crimes that could result from them at a later date.

In September, the police watchdog warned that forces were recording too many hate crime incidents and getting involved in disputes that include “hurt feelings”.

The report found officers were having to take action that “may appear to contradict common sense”, according to Andy Cooke, the chief inspector of constabulary.

Last year, Suella Braverman, the former home secretary, raised the threshold for non-crime hate incidents because of free speech concerns. The move meant non-crime hate incidents should only be recorded if they were “clearly motivated by intentional hostility” and there was a “real risk of escalation causing significant harm or a criminal offence”.

Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, is looking to reverse this for anti-Semitic and Islamophobic abuse, which she is concerned is being overlooked because of the new threshold, which prevents police from recording incidents that could escalate into serious violence or crime.

The No 10 spokesman said: “It’s important that the police can capture data relating to non crime hate incidents where it is proportionate and necessary to do so to help prevent serious crimes which may later occur.

“As we have previously said, the Home Office is looking at how to do this whilst also balancing the fundamental right of free speech, and ensuring that the police can spend their time dealing with the issues that matter most to our communities.”

Fraser Nelson, the former editor of The Spectator, said the Pearson case was “atrocious”, adding: “Why should the police ever be put in a position where they are having to speak to people about a crime that they can’t mention?”

Toby Young, the director of the Free Speech Union, a campaign group supporting Pearson, has criticised the use of non-crime hate incidents.

He said it was “alarming” that non-crime hate incidents “can show up on your criminal record when you apply for a job”, adding: “The fact that you have committed a ‘non-crime’ is quite serious.”

An Essex Police spokesman said: “As a police force, we investigate matters which are reported to us without fear or favour, no matter who makes a report or to whom the incident concerns.”

The force said it was awaiting confirmation of Pearson’s available dates to attend a voluntary interview on the issue. Pearson has said that she is minded to attend with her lawyer.