Avon and Somerset Police have confirmed that no charges will be brought against the punk duo Bob Vylan following an investigation into comments made during their performance at Glastonbury Festival 2025. Despite acknowledging widespread public anger and the “very strong” language used, the force concluded that the evidence did not meet the high threshold required for a realistic prospect of criminal conviction.
The investigation centred on the band’s set on the West Holts stage on Saturday 28 June, where frontman Bobby Vylan (Pascal Robinson-Foster) led the crowd in a chant of “death, death to the IDF”. While the comments drew immediate condemnation from political figures—including the Prime Minister, who labelled it “appalling hate speech”—the gap between offensive language and criminal conduct proved decisive in the legal outcome .
The Legal Threshold: Why No Charges?
The decision to take no further action highlights the significant legal complexities involved in prosecuting speech offences, particularly within an artistic setting. Police consulted extensively with the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), the National Police Chiefs’ Council hate crime leads, and an independent barrister before reaching their conclusion.
Key to the decision was the difficulty in proving criminal intent. As Jonathan Hall KC, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, noted in the aftermath of the incident, prosecuting such speech requires demonstrating that the performer intended to incite violence or harassment against specific individuals present . Hall argued that while the chant was “provocative,” a musical performance at a festival is legally distinct from a direct confrontation or targeted harassment of individuals in a public space .
Creative Context and Free Speech
The distinction between a “visiting speaker” at a university and a performer at a music festival also plays a role in how such speech is interpreted legally .
- Intent vs. Impact: For a public order offence to be committed, there must generally be an intent to cause immediate violence or a belief that it is likely to occur .
- The “Creative Exception”: Courts often view stage performances through a different lens than street protests, recognising a wider latitude for artistic expression, even when that expression is shocking or deeply offensive to many .
The police statement acknowledged these nuances, stating they sought specific advice on “the intent behind [the words], the wider context of how people heard what was said, case law… and freedom of speech”. Ultimately, the “fundamental evidential difficulties” meant a conviction was unlikely, a conclusion echoed by the Met Police who recently closed a similar investigation into the band’s show at Alexandra Palace.
Conclusion of the Case
“A man in his mid-30s” was interviewed voluntarily under caution in November, but was not arrested. He was informed on Tuesday (23 December) that the matter is now closed.
While the legal matter is settled, police emphasised that the decision does not minimise the distress caused, particularly to Jewish communities with whom they have maintained open dialogue. The BBC also faced repercussions, partly upholding complaints regarding their live stream of the set, having been caught off-guard by the unscripted moment.
Ultimately, the case serves as a high-profile example of the rigorous legal tests applied to freedom of expression in the UK. As the police noted, simply because a high threshold for conviction exists, it does not mean words lack “real-world consequences,” but the criminal law remains a specific tool with strict evidential requirements.
Add as a preferred source