Dr Freddie Attenborough is Director of Research for the Free Speech Union.
A Royal Holloway student is taking the university to the High Court after being suspended and placed under campus restrictions for several weeks following a Freshers’ Fair confrontation in which he compared a pro-Palestinian student’s keffiyeh to a “tea towel”.
Having already escalated into a six-figure legal battle, with the court stepping in to limit the university’s recoverable costs to “only” a quarter of a million pounds, the case is a sobering illustration of the financial risks faced by people who challenge disciplinary action over contentious speech at large, well-funded institutions.
Brodie Mitchell, 20, who describes himself as a non-Jewish but “fiercely pro-Zionist” student, claims the university acted unlawfully by subjecting him to what he describes as “unfair” disciplinary measures after the incident. The university, for its part, has said the conduct was found to be harassment following a disciplinary process – although, given that its policies and codes use two different formulations of the term, it’s not entirely clear which standard has been applied to reach that conclusion.
The second-year undergraduate in politics and international relations – who also happens to be a member of the university’s Conservative Association – is now set to challenge the university’s decision to suspend him in proceedings due to be heard in June, arguing that the measures imposed disrupted his studies and placed significant restrictions on his participation in campus life.
According to his witness statement, Mitchell had previously clashed on a number of occasions with students from the Friends of Palestine Society. He became involved in the Freshers’ Fair confrontation last September after Huda El-Jamal, the society’s president, allegedly described him as a “wannabe Jew” and asked why he was not wearing a yarmulke or kippah.
His statement continues: “I began filming the interaction as I realised I didn’t have any witnesses and said, ‘You’re wearing a tea towel on your head’, referring to her keffiyeh.”
Admittedly, neither party in the exchange could be said to have reached a pitch of cultivated sophistication likely to have secured an open invitation to Madame Récamier’s salon. But so what? For all its lack of subtlety, there’s nothing on either side that most people would regard as anything more than a bit of knockabout, music-hall stuff.
And yet, the day after the exchange, following a complaint from Ms El-Jamal, Royal Holloway informed Mitchell that he had been suspended “for alleged conduct that could be considered hate speech and for filming of individuals without their consent”. He was subsequently told that he would appear before a university major misconduct panel to face allegations of breaching its student conduct regulations.
Shortly afterwards, Mitchell emailed the university to say that his response had been “poorly expressed and inappropriate” and that “it was only about politics, not about race or religion” and offered to apologise to Ms El-Jamal. Royal Holloway has said, however, that following its disciplinary process the conduct in question was found to be harassment.
It isn’t immediately clear what meaning of “harassment” the university was applying. On one university webpage dealing with harassment, the term is defined in the language of section 26 of the Equality Act 2010 as “unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic, which has the purpose or effect of violating an individual’s dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for the individual”. In that statutory formulation, a single incident may be sufficient, although where “effect” is relied on, the Act requires regard to be had not only to the complainant’s perception, but also to the other circumstances of the case and to whether it was reasonable for the conduct to have had that effect.
Elsewhere, however, in Appendix 1 to the Student Conduct Regulations invoked in the case, harassment is described as conduct “which has arisen on at least two occasions”, alongside the same Equality Act language, but with that additional requirement tagged on. That formulation appears to introduce a requirement of repetition not found in the statutory definition, and is closer to the “course of conduct” language associated with the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, a framework more commonly encountered in criminal law.
During the university’s investigation, Mitchell was also made subject to a Campus Exclusion / Restriction Order, or CERO. Under Royal Holloway’s Student Conduct Regulations, such an order “places conditions or restrictions” on a student “that they must meet to continue attendance at the University or reside in University accommodation”. The regulations also state that a CERO may remain in force either for a shorter period or for the remainder of a student’s registration.
Mitchell says he was forced to leave his student accommodation for several days, a claim denied by the university, and that the dispute with Ms El-Jamal, a third-year student, could have been resolved informally.
In December 2025, a High Court judge rejected his application for a mandatory injunction against the university in relation to his suspension and loss of teaching time, noting that a number of issues raised by his legal team had by then been either partially or wholly resolved, including the extension of his essay deadlines.
The case is now due to proceed to a full trial in June, where Mitchell is expected to argue that the disciplinary action taken by the university deprived him of the equivalent of seven weeks of teaching and may delay the completion of his degree.
Defending its procedures, Royal Holloway said it had investigated the incident and encouraged an informal resolution to the dispute. Dr Nick Barratt, the university’s chief student officer, said the university had been obliged to follow its conduct procedures after receiving “a formal complaint from a student who described being targeted with a comment from another student they found discriminatory and distressing – and which was reported to the police as a hate crime”.
Surrey Police is understood to be continuing to investigate the incident. But quite what Dr Barratt means by a “hate crime” is unclear, since this is a police and CPS flagging category rather than a charge in itself. Could the force be considering whether any underlying public-order offence arises, which could then be charged as racially or religiously aggravated where hostility is alleged? On the public account currently available, that seems difficult to believe, since the reported remark does not obviously meet the threshold of “threatening or abusive” words or behaviour required for that kind of offence.
Unfortunately, Mitchell’s problems don’t end there. Royal Holloway is now preparing to defend its actions in the High Court at significant expense. At a recent costs management hearing, the university indicated that its legal fees could reach £734,000, a figure described with commendable restraint by Mitchell’s barrister, Francis Hoar, as “grossly disproportionate and unreasonable”. The court subsequently reduced the university’s recoverable future costs to £226,000. But of course that remains a substantial sum, and in civil litigation figures of that order significantly increase the financial risk attached to pursuing the claim, since Mitchell could, if he loses, and subject to the court’s discretion and later assessment, be ordered to pay a substantial proportion of the university’s costs.
Thankfully, however, Mitchell is being backed by the Free Speech Union, which has argued that the scale of this expenditure is excessive and, as they put it, “clearly has the aim of deterring a young student from litigation”.
Speaking about his legal action, Mitchell said: “I respect others’ right to hold opposing views, but I also believe in the importance of open dialogue and the ability to disagree without hate.
“I’ve seen too often that people are scared to speak up at universities, and that’s something I want to change. I just want to continue my studies, finish my degree, and live a normal life again, without fear, without intimidation, and without being silenced for having a political opinion.”
Royal Holloway’s motto is esse quam videri – ‘to be, rather than to seem’. In taking this step, Mitchell is doing nothing if not living up to it. Those wishing to support him as he takes on a well-funded university that knows how to rack up legal costs can donate to the FSU’s crowdfunder here.
Dr Freddie Attenborough is Director of Research for the Free Speech Union.
A Royal Holloway student is taking the university to the High Court after being suspended and placed under campus restrictions for several weeks following a Freshers’ Fair confrontation in which he compared a pro-Palestinian student’s keffiyeh to a “tea towel”.
Having already escalated into a six-figure legal battle, with the court stepping in to limit the university’s recoverable costs to “only” a quarter of a million pounds, the case is a sobering illustration of the financial risks faced by people who challenge disciplinary action over contentious speech at large, well-funded institutions.
Brodie Mitchell, 20, who describes himself as a non-Jewish but “fiercely pro-Zionist” student, claims the university acted unlawfully by subjecting him to what he describes as “unfair” disciplinary measures after the incident. The university, for its part, has said the conduct was found to be harassment following a disciplinary process – although, given that its policies and codes use two different formulations of the term, it’s not entirely clear which standard has been applied to reach that conclusion.
The second-year undergraduate in politics and international relations – who also happens to be a member of the university’s Conservative Association – is now set to challenge the university’s decision to suspend him in proceedings due to be heard in June, arguing that the measures imposed disrupted his studies and placed significant restrictions on his participation in campus life.
According to his witness statement, Mitchell had previously clashed on a number of occasions with students from the Friends of Palestine Society. He became involved in the Freshers’ Fair confrontation last September after Huda El-Jamal, the society’s president, allegedly described him as a “wannabe Jew” and asked why he was not wearing a yarmulke or kippah.
His statement continues: “I began filming the interaction as I realised I didn’t have any witnesses and said, ‘You’re wearing a tea towel on your head’, referring to her keffiyeh.”
Admittedly, neither party in the exchange could be said to have reached a pitch of cultivated sophistication likely to have secured an open invitation to Madame Récamier’s salon. But so what? For all its lack of subtlety, there’s nothing on either side that most people would regard as anything more than a bit of knockabout, music-hall stuff.
And yet, the day after the exchange, following a complaint from Ms El-Jamal, Royal Holloway informed Mitchell that he had been suspended “for alleged conduct that could be considered hate speech and for filming of individuals without their consent”. He was subsequently told that he would appear before a university major misconduct panel to face allegations of breaching its student conduct regulations.
Shortly afterwards, Mitchell emailed the university to say that his response had been “poorly expressed and inappropriate” and that “it was only about politics, not about race or religion” and offered to apologise to Ms El-Jamal. Royal Holloway has said, however, that following its disciplinary process the conduct in question was found to be harassment.
It isn’t immediately clear what meaning of “harassment” the university was applying. On one university webpage dealing with harassment, the term is defined in the language of section 26 of the Equality Act 2010 as “unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic, which has the purpose or effect of violating an individual’s dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for the individual”. In that statutory formulation, a single incident may be sufficient, although where “effect” is relied on, the Act requires regard to be had not only to the complainant’s perception, but also to the other circumstances of the case and to whether it was reasonable for the conduct to have had that effect.
Elsewhere, however, in Appendix 1 to the Student Conduct Regulations invoked in the case, harassment is described as conduct “which has arisen on at least two occasions”, alongside the same Equality Act language, but with that additional requirement tagged on. That formulation appears to introduce a requirement of repetition not found in the statutory definition, and is closer to the “course of conduct” language associated with the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, a framework more commonly encountered in criminal law.
During the university’s investigation, Mitchell was also made subject to a Campus Exclusion / Restriction Order, or CERO. Under Royal Holloway’s Student Conduct Regulations, such an order “places conditions or restrictions” on a student “that they must meet to continue attendance at the University or reside in University accommodation”. The regulations also state that a CERO may remain in force either for a shorter period or for the remainder of a student’s registration.
Mitchell says he was forced to leave his student accommodation for several days, a claim denied by the university, and that the dispute with Ms El-Jamal, a third-year student, could have been resolved informally.
In December 2025, a High Court judge rejected his application for a mandatory injunction against the university in relation to his suspension and loss of teaching time, noting that a number of issues raised by his legal team had by then been either partially or wholly resolved, including the extension of his essay deadlines.
The case is now due to proceed to a full trial in June, where Mitchell is expected to argue that the disciplinary action taken by the university deprived him of the equivalent of seven weeks of teaching and may delay the completion of his degree.
Defending its procedures, Royal Holloway said it had investigated the incident and encouraged an informal resolution to the dispute. Dr Nick Barratt, the university’s chief student officer, said the university had been obliged to follow its conduct procedures after receiving “a formal complaint from a student who described being targeted with a comment from another student they found discriminatory and distressing – and which was reported to the police as a hate crime”.
Surrey Police is understood to be continuing to investigate the incident. But quite what Dr Barratt means by a “hate crime” is unclear, since this is a police and CPS flagging category rather than a charge in itself. Could the force be considering whether any underlying public-order offence arises, which could then be charged as racially or religiously aggravated where hostility is alleged? On the public account currently available, that seems difficult to believe, since the reported remark does not obviously meet the threshold of “threatening or abusive” words or behaviour required for that kind of offence.
Unfortunately, Mitchell’s problems don’t end there. Royal Holloway is now preparing to defend its actions in the High Court at significant expense. At a recent costs management hearing, the university indicated that its legal fees could reach £734,000, a figure described with commendable restraint by Mitchell’s barrister, Francis Hoar, as “grossly disproportionate and unreasonable”. The court subsequently reduced the university’s recoverable future costs to £226,000. But of course that remains a substantial sum, and in civil litigation figures of that order significantly increase the financial risk attached to pursuing the claim, since Mitchell could, if he loses, and subject to the court’s discretion and later assessment, be ordered to pay a substantial proportion of the university’s costs.
Thankfully, however, Mitchell is being backed by the Free Speech Union, which has argued that the scale of this expenditure is excessive and, as they put it, “clearly has the aim of deterring a young student from litigation”.
Speaking about his legal action, Mitchell said: “I respect others’ right to hold opposing views, but I also believe in the importance of open dialogue and the ability to disagree without hate.
“I’ve seen too often that people are scared to speak up at universities, and that’s something I want to change. I just want to continue my studies, finish my degree, and live a normal life again, without fear, without intimidation, and without being silenced for having a political opinion.”
Royal Holloway’s motto is esse quam videri – ‘to be, rather than to seem’. In taking this step, Mitchell is doing nothing if not living up to it. Those wishing to support him as he takes on a well-funded university that knows how to rack up legal costs can donate to the FSU’s crowdfunder here.