Brighton, 3 September 2025 – A Christian street preacher was temporarily banned from Brighton’s city centre under public order powers in what observers describe as part of a growing national pattern of suppressing religious expression. Ollie Sabatelli, a prominent evangelical preacher with over 184,000 followers on TikTok, was issued a Section 35 dispersal order by Sussex Police on Friday, 29 August, reportedly for “antisocial behaviour.” The order barred him from returning to the city centre for 24 hours.
Mr Sabatelli, who regularly preaches near Brighton’s Clock Tower using amplification equipment, stated in a video that he was banned simply for “preaching out the Bible.” He added, “The work of God and the word of God will prevail,” and noted that police are “always being called on [him].”
Police confirmed the dispersal order but declined to specify what conduct led to it. No criminal charges were filed.
Legal Grounds and Growing Concerns
A Section 35 dispersal order, permitted under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, allows police to exclude individuals from a designated area for up to 48 hours if their presence is deemed likely to cause “harassment, alarm or distress”, even without the commission of any crime¹. Critics argue that the broadness of this standard enables authorities to stifle unwelcome viewpoints—including religious beliefs—under the guise of maintaining public comfort.
Mr Sabatelli’s case is not isolated. In recent years, multiple legal challenges have emerged in response to police and council attempts to restrict or penalise public preaching:
- In July 2025, the Kingsborough Centre, a Pentecostal church in West London, overturned a PSPO that banned Bible verses and public preaching in Uxbridge².
- In 2024, charges were dropped against John Dunn and Shaun O’Sullivan, arrested for street preaching. Courts acknowledged their rights under Articles 9 and 10 of the Human Rights Act³.
- Preacher Dia Moodley received a formal settlement after Avon & Somerset Police admitted they acted disproportionately in restricting his speech⁴.
- In Rotherham, preacher John Steele was arrested and later cleared after discussing religious texts with a Muslim woman⁵.
- A controversial Rushmoor Borough Council proposal in early 2025 would have criminalised unsolicited prayer, Bible distribution, and perceived ‘hostile’ religious messages. It was suspended following legal pressure⁶.
Older landmark cases also provide important legal backdrop:
- In Redmond-Bate v DPP (1999), the High Court upheld the right to preach lawfully even if the message causes offence⁷.
- In contrast, the conviction of Harry Hammond (2001) for holding a placard against homosexuality was upheld by the ECHR as a legitimate restriction⁸.
Brighton’s Double Standard?
Brighton is often styled as a beacon of inclusivity and progressive values, but Sabatelli’s temporary removal exposes an unresolved tension: whose speech is protected in the public square? Religious groups have long voiced concern that while secular, activist, or identity-based messages are celebrated in civic spaces, orthodox Christian proclamation is met with increasing hostility.
Sabatelli’s public preaching—forceful, visible, and deeply counter-cultural—represents precisely the kind of expression that tests society’s true tolerance. While some may find his tone provocative, there is no indication that he incites violence or hatred. Yet, as in other recent cases, the mere expression of traditional Christian teaching in a public setting is increasingly treated as threatening, intolerant, or socially disruptive.
The Broader Ecclesial Witness
The Church’s mandate to preach is not conditioned on popularity or public approval. Christ commanded His followers to go into all nations, proclaiming repentance and the Kingdom of God (cf. Matt. 28:19; Mark 1:15). The Apostles preached openly, even under threat of imprisonment. St Paul declared, “Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel!” (1 Cor. 9:16).
In this light, the action against Mr Sabatelli should concern all who cherish the freedom of religious expression, regardless of doctrinal alignment. Evangelism is not merely a right—it is a duty. And public space must remain a place where truth, even when unpopular, can be spoken.
“Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season; reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine.”
— 2 Timothy 4:2
Footnotes
¹ Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, Section 35.
² Kingsborough Centre v. London Borough of Hillingdon, July 2025. [Premier Christian News]
³ R (Dunn & O’Sullivan) v CPS, 2024. Charges dropped; articles 9 & 10 invoked (HRA 1998).
⁴ Moodley v. Avon & Somerset Police, 2024. Settlement awarded after unlawful restriction. [ADF UK]
⁵ John Steele, Rotherham, 2025. Arrested, then cleared after street preaching incident.
⁶ Rushmoor Borough Council proposed injunction, March 2025. Suspended following legal challenge.
⁷ Redmond-Bate v DPP [1999] EWHC Admin 733 – affirmed right to preach even if offensive.
⁸ Hammond v DPP, 2001–2004. Conviction upheld under Public Order Act; ECHR dismissed appeal.
Leave a Reply