Standing up for academic freedom: How legal action exposed foreign pressure on UK universities
When Professor Laura Murphy returned to Sheffield Hallam University (SHU) in early 2025, she was presented with an ultimatum no academic should face: either stop researching forced labour in China , or change her field entirely.
Murphy, a leading scholar on modern slavery and human rights, had spent years exposing how forced labour in Xinjiang fuels global industries, from textiles to renewable energy. Her findings helped shape the Uyghur Forced Labour Prevention Act in the US and earned her international recognition.
But behind the scenes, her own university had placed restrictions on her research after receiving pressure from Chinese state officials.
This is the story of how strategic legal action, supported by Law for Change, restored her academic freedom , and revealed how vulnerable UK universities can be to external influence.
When commercial interests threaten academic independence
Freedom of Information and Data Subject Access requests uncovered that SHU had:
Halted publication of a funded research project;
Removed the Forced Labour Lab’s research from university websites;
Restricted Professor Murphy’s ability to pursue her work on China.
These actions followed direct threats from China’s National Security Service, which had reportedly blocked the university’s online access in China. Faced with potential financial repercussions, the institution appeared to prioritise commercial relationships over academic principle.
This case posed a critical question: Can universities uphold academic freedom when faced with international political and economic pressure?
With funding from Law for Change, Professor Murphy instructed Tessa Gregory and Claire Powell of Leigh Day to challenge SHU’s conduct through a pre-action protocol letter for judicial review.
The legal challenge argued that the university’s actions appeared to breach:
The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023, imposing a statutory duty to safeguard free expression;
The Employment Act 1986, protecting workers from detrimental treatment; and
Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, securing freedom of expression.
The letter sought legal justification for any restrictions imposed on Murphy’s research. Confronted with the evidence, SHU confirmed that no lawful restrictions existed, and issued a formal apology to Professor Murphy for the handling of her case.
What the documents revealed
Internal communications obtained through legal and information requests revealed a troubling picture: when faced with threats from a foreign government, a UK university had chosen risk management over the protection of academic freedom.
“We cannot have UK universities acting as the long arm of a foreign government,” said Professor Murphy. “Silencing research into human rights abuses undermines the integrity of higher education.”
Her solicitor, Claire Powell, added:
“This case highlights how economic and political pressures can corrode core freedoms. Universities must strengthen their systems to resist such interference.”
The revelations drew significant media attention, making the front page of The Guardian and featuring on BBC Radio 4. This level of coverage underscored public concern about foreign interference in British universities and the fragility of academic freedom when confronted with political pressure.
Why strategic litigation matters
This case demonstrates how strategic legal intervention can defend fundamental rights when institutional accountability falters. Legal action:
Forced transparency through formal information requests;
Exposed restrictions that contravened the law;
Prompted a public reaffirmation of academic freedom.
The challenge ensured that Professor Murphy could resume her research, and set an important example for how universities must respond when their independence is tested.
Learn more about Law for Change’s approach to strategic litigation and how we support cases defending free expression and human rights.
Moving forward: Reform and reflection
Following the resolution, SHU not only apologised to Professor Murphy but also announced plans to review and strengthen its internal processes for handling politically sensitive research. Proposed measures include clearer oversight mechanisms and staff support when external pressure arises.
While these steps are welcome, the episode reveals a broader challenge for UK higher education. Universities reliant on international partnerships and funding must ensure that financial interests never override legal duties or academic integrity.
For the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 to be meaningful, it needs to be backed by transparent governance, institutional courage, and, when necessary, legal enforcement.
Academic freedom is not an abstract right; it is the foundation of evidence-based truth. When that freedom is compromised, the law becomes a crucial safeguard.
The Murphy case shows that litigation can protect not just individuals, but the public’s right to know, ensuring that universities remain places of inquiry, not instruments of censorship.
At Law for Change, we will continue to support cases that challenge unlawful restrictions on knowledge, expression, and accountability.
Learn More
Law for Change funds strategic litigation that advances social justice and protects fundamental rights. This case was handled by Leigh Day solicitors, with Darryl Hutcheon of Matrix Chambers acting as counsel.