Stephen Gray, a retired Cleveland Police officer, was convicted under Section 127(1)(a) of the Communications Act 2003 after reposting an image a judge found grossly offensive; a second repost was ruled political and lawful. He was fined more than £1,000 and is appealing the conviction with backing from the Free Speech Union. The CPS originally declined to charge but authorised prosecution after a Victims' Right to Review. Gray says the case risks his foster carer status and raises concerns about a de facto return of blasphemy-style prosecutions.
Ex-Police Officer Convicted Over Anti-Islam Repost Says 'Blasphemy Law Is Back'
Stephen Gray was charged with making grossly offensive posts online - Mark Pinder
Stephen Gray, a 65-year-old retired Cleveland Police officer from Darlington, was convicted at Newton Aycliffe magistrates' court in April 2026 after reposting an image on Facebook that a judge found 'grossly offensive' under Section 127(1)(a) of the Communications Act 2003. A second repost he shared was judged to be political and lawful.
Case Details
Gray, who served nearly 30 years with Cleveland Police, told reporters his primary concern on learning he faced criminal charges was for a young girl his family had been fostering for six years. He said a criminal record could jeopardise the enhanced DBS checks required of foster carers and unsettle a child who had already experienced upheaval.
Stephen Gray was found guilty of making a grossly offensive post on Facebook - Mark Pinder
Prosecutors relied on two reposted images. The first, which featured a caption referencing 'Children in Need' and immigration, was ruled by the district judge not to be grossly offensive and related to a political issue. The second image, depicting bacon alongside a man in a turban with the caption 'Fun facts about Bacon! People who eat bacon have a lower chance of marrying a 9-year-old!', was judged to target religion and was found grossly offensive, leading to Gray's conviction.
'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,' Gray said in evidence.
Procedural History
Durham Constabulary passed its file to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), which initially declined to charge, saying there was no realistic prospect of conviction. After the complainant used the Victims' Right to Review scheme, the CPS reconsidered and authorised charges. Gray was convicted, fined and ordered to pay costs totalling just over £1,000; he is appealing the conviction with support from the Free Speech Union (FSU).
Hamit Coskun, who was previously convicted of a religiously aggravated public order offence, successfully appealed the decision against the CPS - Ben Whitley/PA
Gray says he informed social services after being charged; social workers reportedly reassured him the prosecution should not automatically threaten the foster placement. Gray and his wife, Alex, 62, have fostered three children over seven years. His appeal is scheduled for November.
Reactions And Wider Debate
Supporters of Gray and free-speech campaigners say the prosecution signals a worrying trend towards what they describe as a de facto revival of blasphemy-style restrictions on speech in the UK. Lord Young of Acton, general secretary of the FSU, criticised the case as a double standard if prosecutions were applied to jokes about one religion and not others.
The article notes a separate, earlier High Court case in which Hamit Coskun successfully appealed a conviction for holding up a burning copy of a holy book and shouting an expletive about Islam; that ruling was described by commentators as an important free-speech judgment.
The CPS declined to comment while Gray's appeal is ongoing. Durham Constabulary has been approached for comment.
Help us improve.
