Father Ted creator Graham Linehan has been cleared of harassment against a trans activist but guilty of criminal damage to their phone.

The 57-year-old comedy writer, who had faced trial at Westminster Magistrates’ Court, denied both charges linked to posts made on social media and a confrontation at a conference in London in October 2024.

Summarising her judgment, District Judge Briony Clarke started by saying it was not for the court to pick sides in the debate about sex and gender identity.

She said she found Linehan was a “generally credible witness” and appeared to be “genuinely frank and honest”, and that she was not satisfied his conduct amounted to the criminal standard of harassment.

The judge said she accepted some of complainant Sophia Brooks’s evidence, but found they were not “entirely truthful” and not “as alarmed or distressed” as they had portrayed themself to be following tweets posted by the comedy writer.

While Linehan’s comments were “deeply unpleasant, insulting and even unnecessary”, they were not “oppressive or unacceptable beyond merely unattractive, annoying or irritating”, the judge said, and did not “cross the boundary from the regrettable to the unacceptable”.

However, she did find him guilty of criminal damage, for throwing Brooks’s phone. Having seen footage of the incident, the judge said she found he took the phone because he was “angry and fed up”, and that she was “satisfied he was not using reasonable force”.

The judge said she was “not sure to the criminal standard” that Linehan had demonstrated hostility based on the complainant being transgender, and therefore this did not aggravate his offence.

He was ordered to pay a fine of £500, court costs of £650 and a statutory surcharge of £200. The prosecution had asked the judge to consider a restraining order, but she said she did not feel this was necessary.

What happened during the trial?

The writer, known for shows including Father Ted, The IT Crowd and Black Books, had flown to the UK from Arizona, where he now lives, to appear in court in person.

He denied harassing Brooks on social media between 11 and 27 October last year, as well as a charge of criminal damage of their mobile phone on 19 October outside the Battle of Ideas conference in Westminster.

The trial heard Brooks, who was 17 at the time, had begun taking photographs of delegates at the event during a speech by Fiona McAnena, director of campaigns at Sex Matters.

Giving evidence during the case, Linehan claimed his “life was made hell” by trans activists and accused Brooks, a trans woman, of being a “young soldier in the trans activist army”.

He told the court he was “angry” and “threw the phone” after being filmed outside the venue by the complainant, who had asked: “Why do you think it is acceptable to call teenagers domestic terrorists?”

Brooks told the court Linehan had called them a “sissy porn-watching scumbag”, a “groomer” and a “disgusting incel”, to which the complainant had responded: “You’re the incel, you’re divorced.”

The prosecution claimed Linehan’s social media posts were “repeated, abusive, unreasonable” while his lawyer accused the complainant of following “a course of conduct designed both to provoke and to harass Mr Linehan”.

Read more from Sky News:
BBC board members face MPs
Woman wakes up in coffin at crematorium

Following the judgment but ahead of sentencing, Linehan’s lawyer Sarah Vine KC said the court “would do well to take a conservative approach towards the reading of hostility towards the victim”.

She said the offence of criminal damage involved a “momentary lapse of control”, and was part of the “debate about gender identity, what it means”.

Vine said it was important “that those who are involved in the debate are allowed to use language that properly expresses their views without fear of excessive state interference for the expression of those views”.

She also said the cost of the case to Linehan had been “enormous”, telling the court: “The damage was minor; the process itself has been highly impactful on Mr Linehan.”

She requested he be given 28 days to pay the full amount.

Heathrow’s £33bn plan for a third runway has been chosen as the plan to expand the airport, Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander has announced.

It means the competing plan for a shorter runway, as proposed by hotel tycoon Surinder Arora, has been rejected.

Heathrow says the project will be 100% privately financed, through higher airline costs, and no taxpayer money will be used to build the runway or the associated infrastructure.

Money blog: ‘My husband died before getting his state pension’

Heathrow plans to spend £33bn on the third runway and £15bn to upgrade the existing airport.

But it will require re-routing the M25 motorway – one of the busiest in the country and the demolition of nearby villages, Longford and Harmondsworth.

The proposal is still subject to the planning process, including consultation and parliamentary scrutiny.

The full length of the runway is not known, as the layout and associated infrastructure implications will continue to be considered by the Department for Transport.

The department added the selection of Heathrow’s scheme does not represent a final decision on a third runway or its design.

Why’s it being built?

The government has said the additional runway could grow the economy and create more than 100,000 jobs, based on research commissioned by Heathrow Airport.

With a third runway, Heathrow could receive 150 million passengers a year, up from 83.9 million last year.

The airport earlier this year announced plans to increase its capacity by 10 million passengers a year, before a third runway is built, and to raise the charge paid by passengers to fund the investment.

When could it be built?

The government hopes a planning decision will be made by 2029, with the third runway being built by 2035.

But Ryanair boss Michael O’Leary, who has consistently refused to use Heathrow on operational and cost grounds, has claimed the chance of it being built is “slim”, but it could be 2050 even if it does get built.

Ms Alexander said: “Today is another important step to enable a third runway… setting the direction for the remainder of our work to get the policy framework in place for airport expansion. This will allow a decision on a third runway plan this parliament, which meets our key tests, including on the environment and economic growth.

“We’re acting swiftly and decisively to get this project off the ground so we can realise its transformational potential for passengers, businesses, and our economy sooner.”

This is going to be a big budget – not to mention a complex budget.

It could, depending on how it lands, determine the fate of this government. And it’s hard to think of many other budgets that have been preceded by quite so much speculation, briefing, and rumour.

All of which is to say, you could be forgiven for feeling rather overwhelmed.

But in practice, what’s happening this week can really be boiled down to three things.

1. Not enough growth

The first is that the economy is not growing as fast as many people had hoped. Or, to put it another way, Britain’s productivity growth is much weaker than it once used to be.

The upshot of that is that there’s less money flowing into the exchequer in the form of tax revenues.

2. Not enough cuts

The second factor is that last year and this, the chancellor promised to make certain cuts to welfare – cuts that would have saved the government billions of pounds of spending a year.

But it has failed to implement those cuts. Put those extra billions together with the shortfall from that weaker productivity, and it’s pretty clear there is a looming hole in the public finances.

3. Not enough levers

The third thing to bear in mind is that Rachel Reeves has pledged to tie her hands in the way she responds to this fiscal hole.

She has fiscal rules that mean she can’t ignore it. She has a manifesto pledge which means she is somewhat limited in the levers she can pull to fill it.

Put it all together, and it adds up to a momentous headache for the chancellor. She needs to raise quite a lot of money and all the “easy” ways of doing it (like raising income tax rates or VAT) seem to be off the table.

So… what will she do?

Quite how she responds remains to be seen – as does the precise size of the fiscal hole. But if the rumours in Westminster are to be believed, she will fall back upon two tricks most of her predecessors have tried at various points.

First, she will deploy “fiscal drag” to squeeze extra income tax and national insurance payments out of families for the coming five years.

What this means in practice is that even though the headline rate of income tax might not go up, the amount of income we end up being taxed on will grow ever higher in the coming years.

Second, the chancellor is expected to squeeze government spending in the distant years for which she doesn’t yet need to provide detailed plans.

Together, these measures may raise somewhere in the region of £10bn. But Reeves’s big problem is that in practice she needs to raise two or three times this amount. So, how will she do that?

Most likely is that she implements a grab-bag of other tax measures: more expensive council tax for high value properties; new CGT rules; new gambling taxes and more.

No return to austerity, but an Osborne-like predicament…

If this summons up a particular memory from history, it’s precisely the same problem George Osborne faced back in 2012. He wanted to raise quite a lot of money but due to agreements with his coalition partners, he was limited in how many big taxes he could raise.

The resulting budget was, at the time at least, the single most complex budget in history. Consider: in the years between 1970 and 2010 the average UK budget contained 14 tax measures. Osborne’s 2012 budget contained a whopping 61 of them.

And not long after he delivered it, the budget started to unravel. You probably recall the pasty tax, and maybe the granny tax and the charity tax. Essentially, he was forced into a series of embarrassing U-turns. If there was a lesson, it was that trying to wodge so many money-raising measures into a single fiscal event was an accident waiting to happen.

Except that… here’s the interesting thing. In the following years, the complexity of budgets didn’t fall – it rose. Osborne broke his own complexity record the next year with the 2013 budget (73 tax measures), and then again in 2016 (86 measures). By 2020 the budget contained a staggering 103 measures. And Reeves’s own first budget, last autumn, very nearly broke this record with 94 measures.

In short, budgets have become more and more complex, chock-full of even more (often microscopic) tax measures.

Read more from Sky News:
What tax measures are expected in budget?
The political jeopardy facing Rachel Reeves in budget

In part, this is a consequence of the fact that, long ago, chancellors seem to have agreed that it would be political suicide to raise the basic rate of income tax or VAT. The consequence is that they have been forced to resort to ever smaller and fiddlier measures to make their numbers add up.

The question is whether this pattern continues this week. Do we end up with yet another astoundingly complex budget? Will that slew of measures backfire as they did for Osborne in 2012? And, more to the point, will they actually benefit the UK economy?