The criminal conviction of retired clinical scientist Livia Tossici-Bolt for holding a sign in an abortion facility “buffer zone” is a stain on Britain’s democratic tradition. Her sign said: “Here to talk, if you want” — an invitation that any passerby was free to accept or reject. And for this, Livia now has a criminal record and has been ordered to pay £20,000 in prosecution costs.
You don’t need to share Livia’s beliefs to be deeply troubled by what this means for free speech in our country. In a free and democratic society, peaceful expression — especially something as innocuous as offering to talk — should never be grounds for criminal punishment.
Her “offence” took place within a 150-metre “buffer zone” in Bournemouth. Inspired by the COVID period when human interaction was scarce, Livia devised her sign because she loves to speak to people about all manner of topics.
The “buffer zone” prohibits protesting — which it defines as “approval or disapproval” — of abortion, but Livia did neither. Her sign made no mention of abortion, and she did not discuss the topic within the “buffer zone”. None of that mattered to Poole Magistrates’ Court, which found her guilty on April 4.
The ostensible aim of “buffer zones” is to prevent the harassment of women. To be clear, Livia did nothing of the sort. She strongly condemns harassment in any form. Moreover, as noted in the judgment, the officer who fined her confirmed in court that he saw no indication of any intimidation.
Livia simply extended an open invitation to anyone who wished to chat, about anything. In a truly tolerant society, we must be able to distinguish between intimidation and invitation. Supporters of “buffer zones” claim they are necessary to protect women from being harassed or intimidated. But harassment is already illegal in the UK, and rightly so. There are ample legal tools to address criminal behaviour without resorting to blanket bans on peaceful presence.
Some have said that Livia should have simply stayed outside the zone. But that egregiously sidesteps the point. The prosecution accepted that she was permitted to be present within the zone — it is, after all, a public space.
This isn’t about one person flouting the law — it’s about whether the interpretation of the law, as put forward by the prosecution, is compatible with fundamental freedoms and whether British law enforcement should be permitted to construe entirely peaceful conduct as criminal.
In Livia’s case, rather than any discernable criminal conduct, it was her known views on abortion that allowed the court to infer “disapproval” from her presence. This is a dangerous precedent. Today, it’s pro-life views that must be censored from particular public spaces — what viewpoints will be censored next?
Laws that criminalise peaceful expression deserve scrutiny, and upon such scrutiny, it’s clear that “buffer zones” are no more than censorship zones, unbefitting of a society that purports to uphold democratic values.
Livia’s conviction sends an alarming message about the state of fundamental freedoms in the UK. An offer of consensual conversation, done by someone holding the “wrong” views, in the “wrong” public place, can now be treated as a criminal act. It is no wonder that the US State Department issued a rare rebuke, stating it was monitoring the case and disappointed with the outcome, on the grounds that, “freedom of expression must be protected for all”.
And Livia’s isn’t an isolated case. Adam Smith-Connor, a military veteran, was recently convicted for three minutes of silent prayer in a Bournemouth “buffer zone”. His “crime” was the thoughts in his head — thoughts that he expressed to no one. Far from the hallmark of a healthy democracy, thought-crime prosecution is a harbinger of authoritarianism. In July of this year, Adam will appeal his conviction.
In a free society, an offer of consensual conversation should never be a crime
In Livia’s words upon receiving her guilty verdict: “This is a dark day for Great Britain … All I did was offer consensual conversation in a public place, as is my basic right, and yet the court found me guilty. Freedom of expression is in a state of crisis in the UK. What has happened to this country?”
With legal support from ADF International, Livia is exploring her options to appeal. She has been clear: this is about far more than defending her own right to free expression. As she has stated: “If we allow this precedent of censorship to stand, nobody’s right to freely express themselves is secure.”
This isn’t just about free speech for one person, on one issue, or in one town. It’s about the kind of country we want to be — one where people can engage with each other freely and respectfully, or one where laws are wielded to silence and punish. The principle is simple: in a free society, an offer of consensual conversation should never be a crime.
