Sheffield Hallam University has apologised to Professor Laura Murphy and reversed a decision that halted her research on forced labour in China, following two years of pressure that UK media report involved Chinese state security officers questioning local staff and access to the university’s sites from China being blocked. Ministers have condemned any foreign intimidation of UK‑based academics.
Internal correspondence cited by the Financial Times and the Guardian indicates that the university weighed risks to operations in China, including website access and recruitment, before deciding in late 2024 not to publish a final report by Murphy’s team. Sheffield Hallam now says the research can continue and has expressed support for freedom of speech and academic freedom within the law.
The Chinese Embassy has rejected the research as flawed and politically motivated, while Baroness Helena Kennedy KC, patron of Sheffield Hallam’s Helena Kennedy Centre, has publicly defended Murphy’s methods. The UK government has reiterated that foreign intimidation is unacceptable and said this has been made clear to Beijing.
Murphy’s work at Sheffield Hallam’s Helena Kennedy Centre has examined supply chains across sectors including solar, automotive, cotton and critical minerals since 2021. University pages summarise these outputs and ongoing projects led by the Forced Labour Lab.
A parallel legal dispute intensified the risk environment. In Smart Shirts Ltd v Sheffield Hallam University, the High Court ruled at preliminary issue in December 2024 that meanings conveyed in a Forced Labour Lab apparel report were defamatory at common law; a further preliminary judgment on meaning followed in May 2025. Insurance constraints cited by the university were linked to these proceedings.
For providers, the regulatory context has shifted. From 1 August 2025, core duties under the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 commenced for universities and constituent institutions in England, including duties to take reasonably practicable steps to secure freedom of speech within the law, to maintain a code of practice, to promote the importance of free speech, and a ban on using NDAs to silence victims of bullying, harassment or sexual misconduct.
The government confirmed in January 2025 that burdensome elements of the 2023 Act would be removed or reworked, including the statutory tort. The Office for Students (OfS) has set out that its free speech complaints scheme will be revised: expected to cover staff and visiting speakers (with students remaining under the OIA scheme), and to give the OfS discretion over which complaints to consider. Until those amendments take effect, providers should continue to meet existing legal duties and engage with the OfS using current routes.
Even before these commencements, the OfS used its existing registration conditions to sanction providers over free speech and governance. In March 2025 it imposed a £585,000 monetary penalty on the University of Sussex for breaches of conditions E1 and E2, citing a chilling effect from a policy that failed to uphold freedom of speech and academic freedom. That case underscores the regulator’s willingness to act under its current powers.
Legacy duties still apply alongside the 2025 commencements. Section 43 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 requires governing bodies to take reasonably practicable steps to secure lawful freedom of speech for members, students, employees and visiting speakers, and to issue and enforce a code of practice. Providers should ensure their codes and procedures align with both the 1986 Act and the 2025 duties.
Foreign influence policy has tightened in parallel. The Foreign Influence Registration Scheme (FIRS) began on 1 July 2025, with a three‑month grace period for existing arrangements. The Home Office has placed Russia (and later Iran) in the enhanced tier requiring registration of political influence activities, with sector guidance indicating academia is within scope. Universities should assess whether any agreements or activities require registration.
Research security expectations have also been updated by funders. UKRI’s Trusted Research and Innovation requirements were strengthened in 2025 and reflected in revised grant terms and conditions in October 2025. Providers in receipt of Research England and UKRI funding are expected to embed proportionate due diligence for international collaboration, export controls and sanctions compliance.
Taken together, these frameworks set clear expectations: universities must protect academic freedom within the law, evidence their risk management on overseas partnerships and local operations, and show that defamation and insurance issues are addressed without imposing blanket bans on lines of inquiry. The Sheffield Hallam episode illustrates the operational pressures-commercial, security and legal-that can collide with academic freedom. The direction of travel in policy is that such pressures should be managed transparently and lawfully, not used to curtail research.
For practitioners, the immediate implications are practical. Review codes of practice and decision‑making delegations against OfS guidance on “reasonably practicable steps”; document risk assessments for contentious research; route student complaints via the OIA and prepare for a revised OfS scheme for staff and visiting speakers; check whether any third‑country ties intersect with FIRS; and ensure TR&I controls and indemnity arrangements are up to date.