Blasphemy law is back, says ex-policeman fined for offensive posts

Stephen Gray, 65, to appeal conviction for resharing posts that were critical of Islam

When Stephen Gray, a retired police officer, was told he would be charged with a criminal offence for sharing posts online that were critical of Islam, his first concern was not for himself.

It was for the young Irish girl he and his wife had been fostering for the past six years.

He told The Telegraph: “I was initially quite worried because obviously we have to have enhanced DBS checks to foster children.

“These kids have enough to put up with without the fear they may be moving again hanging over their heads.”

Gray, 65, who worked for Cleveland Police for nearly three decades, went on trial at Newton Aycliffe magistrates’ court in April 2026.

Despite pointing out he had only reshared the posts, as hundreds of other people had, and explaining he viewed them as political satire, he was found guilty of making a grossly offensive post on Facebook contrary to Section 127(1)(a) of the Communications Act 2003.

Speaking from his home in Darlington, County Durham, Gray still cannot get his head around the fact he has a criminal conviction for a post on social media.

He said: “I guess some of the posts may have been in bad taste. Some of them may upset one or two people, but I didn’t think for one second it would be cast as grossly offensive by the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and by the courts. Not for one second.”

Gray was charged over the reposting of two allegedly offensive images.

The first had the words “time for mass deportation” alongside an image of a Middle Eastern man, who was in his late 20s or 30s, and the words “Children in Need”.

The image had the caption “12-year-old Mohammed recently arrived at Dover. Please donate to help him move from a three-star to a five-star hotel which has a better halal menu, free wifi and Sky and is nearer to a girls’ school”.

The second image was a picture of a rasher of bacon and a man in a turban alongside the caption “Fun facts about Bacon!” People who eat bacon have a lower chance of marrying a 9-year-old!”

Ultimately, the district judge who tried his case ruled the first post was not grossly offensive and it related to a political issue that had been debated in Parliament.

The second image, however, resulted in a conviction. The judge ruled the post was not political; it was about religion, and it was grossly offensive.
‘I made a joke’

Giving evidence during the trial, Gray pointed out that he had not made the images himself but had simply reposted the images along with thousands of other people.

The posts had not been directed at any individual and the person who complained about it to police in the first place, was a non-Muslim neighbour of Gray’s, with whom he had previously had an unrelated disagreement.

Gray said: “I made a joke, an ironic joke, about Islam. That is all it was at the end of the day. A joke. I certainly never, not for one second, thought it would be deemed abusive.”

After being found guilty, Gray, who is appealing against the decision with the support of the Free Speech Union (FSU), was also ordered to pay more than £1,000 in fines and costs.

Gray and his wife Alex, 62, have fostered three children over the past seven years. He informed social services about the prosecution after he was charged.

“Even they looked at it and said, ‘This is utter rubbish’. They reassured me nothing would happen as a result of it,” he said. “So that was a bit of pressure off. We were very worried about losing her.”

After investigating the posts, Durham Constabulary passed a file of evidence to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), who initially declined to charge Gray, saying there was no realistic prospect of conviction.

But the person who made the original complaint appealed the decision using the Victims’ Right to Review scheme, and the CPS then decided to proceed with the case.

‘Absolutely gobsmacked’

When they initially presented the case in court, prosecutors highlighted posts Gray had published as criticism of the Labour Party and Sir Keir Starmer “for context”.

Gray said that he had told his former boss at Cleveland Police about the case and he was “absolutely gobsmacked”.

He said: “He couldn’t believe it. Back when I was serving, if I had taken this case to my sergeant or inspector, I would have been on foot beat night shift for the next five years for wasting everybody’s time. It wouldn’t have got past the front door of the police station.”

Gray said he was “humbled” by all the help he had been given to fight his case. His appeal is scheduled to be heard in November.

He said he believed prosecutions such as his were an attempt to revive blasphemy laws in the UK.

“I just think it’s a dangerous road that the Government is going down trying to use the justice system to get us to stop criticising a religion that promotes a lot of things people might not agree with,” he added.

Lord Young of Acton, general secretary of the FSU, said: “Prosecuting people for making jokes about Islam, particularly if they contain a kernel of truth, is a new low.

“No one making a similar joke about Jesus would face prosecution. Blasphemy laws were abolished in England 18 years ago and should not be resurrected by the courts and applied to just one religion.

“If Labour wants to make it a criminal offence to offend Muslims, but not Christians, Hindus, Sikhs or Buddhists, Andy Burnham should include that in the next King’s Speech. Good luck getting it through parliament.”

Gray’s ordeal follows that of Hamit Coskun, who won a landmark blasphemy case at the High Court earlier this year.

Mr Coskun was convicted of a religiously aggravated public order offence after holding up a flaming copy of the holy book and shouting “f—- Islam”, in what he insisted was a political protest.

He successfully appealed the decision against the CPS, who had claimed his actions were criminal and amounted to disorderly conduct.

Mr Coskun said at the time that if the High Court had not ruled in his favour, “the Islamic blasphemy code would now be, in essence, embedded into English law”.

The CPS declined to comment while Gray’s appeal was ongoing. Durham Constabulary has been approached for comment.

Daily Telegraph