Graham Linehan Cleared of Harassment but Found Guilty of Damaging Activist’s Phone

Comedy writer Graham Linehan, best known as the creator of Father Ted, has been acquitted of harassment against trans activist Sophia Brooks but found guilty of criminal damage in connection with an incident involving their mobile phone. The verdict was delivered at Westminster Magistrates’ Court, bringing an end to a case that drew intense public interest because of Linehan’s long-standing involvement in online debates around sex and gender identity.

The fifty seven year old had denied both charges, which stemmed from social media posts and a confrontation at a London conference in October 2024. District Judge Briony Clarke made clear from the outset that the court’s role was not to take sides in broader cultural or political disagreements. Her judgment focused entirely on the evidence presented and the legal standards that had to be met.

Judge Describes Linehan as a Credible Witness

In summarising her findings, Judge Clarke said she considered Linehan to be a generally credible witness. She described him as frank, honest, and consistent in his testimony. Although she accepted parts of the complainant’s evidence, she concluded that Brooks had not been entirely truthful about their level of fear or distress following Linehan’s online comments.

Those comments, the judge noted, were deeply unpleasant, insulting and unnecessary. However, she also stressed that the law requires a high threshold for harassment. According to her assessment, Linehan’s remarks did not cross the boundary from offensive or irritating behaviour into criminal harassment. They were not oppressive, nor did they meet the standard of being unacceptable to the degree required for a conviction.

Findings on the Incident Involving the Phone

While Linehan was cleared of harassment, the judge reached a different conclusion regarding the confrontation at the conference. Video footage played a key role in her decision. It showed Linehan taking Brooks’s phone and throwing it, an action Judge Clarke described as driven by anger and frustration rather than any justified attempt to protect himself.

She ruled that he had not used reasonable force and therefore was guilty of criminal damage. The judge added that although the situation was heated, the evidence did not prove to a criminal standard that Linehan acted with hostility based on the complainant’s transgender identity. As a result, the offence was not treated as aggravated by prejudice.

Evaluating Both Sides of the Story

Throughout the judgment, Judge Clarke balanced her evaluation of testimony from both parties. While she accepted some elements of Brooks’s account, she found inconsistencies in how they described their emotional response to Linehan’s tweets. The judge said Brooks had overstated the level of alarm they felt, and she was not persuaded that the posts constituted the kind of sustained or targeted behaviour required for a harassment conviction.

At the same time, she did not excuse Linehan’s behaviour. She acknowledged that his comments were inappropriate and unkind, and she emphasised that public figures have a responsibility to participate respectfully in public debate. However, the legal question was whether his conduct was criminally oppressive. In her view, the evidence did not support that conclusion.

Context Behind the Confrontation

The confrontation that led to the criminal damage charge occurred during a conference where both individuals were present. The atmosphere was already tense, shaped by months of heated exchanges on social media. Video footage captured the moment Linehan grabbed the phone while Brooks was filming him. The judge said that Linehan’s reaction appeared spontaneous and fuelled by irritation rather than premeditated aggression.

Though the incident did not meet the threshold for a more serious offence, Judge Clarke found that the act of throwing the phone clearly constituted unreasonable force. She noted that individuals in public settings have the right to record interactions unless circumstances dictate otherwise, and that reacting physically to such a situation is neither justified nor lawful.

A Case Highlighting Tensions in Public Discourse

The verdict leaves Linehan with one conviction but avoids a more serious finding of harassment. For many observers, the case has become symbolic of wider cultural tensions and the emotionally charged nature of discussions around gender identity. While the court refused to engage in the political dimensions of the issue, the attention it received reflects how polarised these conversations have become.

Linehan left court with a mixture of relief and consequence. Although cleared of the accusation that carried the more severe social stigma, he now faces the legal and personal implications of the criminal damage conviction. The decision also serves as a reminder that heated public debates do not exempt individuals from responsibility for their actions.