It began as a series of pointed emails and WhatsApp messages about a primary school’s headteacher recruitment—but ended with six police officers, a crying child, and a nationwide debate over parents’ rights and police powers. On January 29, 2025, Rosalind Levine and Maxie Allen were arrested at their home in Borehamwood, Hertfordshire, in front of their three-year-old daughter. The couple, who had been vocal critics of Cowley Hill Primary School’s leadership, were held for up to 11 hours on suspicion of harassment, malicious communications, and causing a nuisance on school property.
The arrest followed months of escalating tension between the couple and the school. According to The Times and BBC, Allen and Levine had questioned the recruitment process for a new headteacher and criticized the school's leadership in a parents’ WhatsApp group. Their daughter, Sascha, has epilepsy, is neurodivergent, and is registered disabled. The parents said their frequent emails and messages were motivated by concern for their daughter’s needs, not malice.
But the school’s response was severe. After warning the parent body about what it described as “inflammatory and defamatory” comments on social media, Cowley Hill’s governors banned Allen and Levine from entering school premises. The school then sought police advice, citing what it called a “high volume of direct correspondence and public social media posts” that staff, parents, and governors found upsetting.
In December 2024, a police officer warned the family to remove their daughter from Cowley Hill—a move the parents complied with in January 2025. Just one week later, Hertfordshire Constabulary descended on the couple’s home. CCTV footage, published by the Daily Mail, shows six uniformed officers arriving and leading Allen and Levine away in front of their distraught young daughter.
Allen, a Times Radio producer and former school governor, told The Times that the experience was “completely Kafkaesque.” He insisted that neither he nor Levine had ever used abusive or threatening language, “even in private.” The strongest remark they could find in their correspondence, he said, was Levine calling a senior school official a “control freak.”
Levine, speaking to the BBC and The Guardian, described the ordeal as deeply traumatic. “When you’re arrested it’s a really horrible experience,” she said. “You lose your liberty, you lose your freedom. I couldn’t walk into the next room of my house without asking permission from a complete stranger who was in my house.” She added that the impact on their children, especially the three-year-old who witnessed her mother’s arrest, was profound. “I’m angry mostly for my children,” Levine said. “I don’t trust [the police].”
The couple spent several hours in police custody—eight hours, according to the Daily Mail, or 11 hours, as reported by The Guardian and BBC. After a five-week investigation, Hertfordshire Constabulary found there was no case to answer and took no further action. Yet, for Allen and Levine, the damage had been done. Their story sparked a national conversation about the use of criminal law in disputes between parents and public institutions.
In November 2025, Hertfordshire Police admitted that the legal criteria for arrest had not been met and agreed to pay the couple £20,000 in damages and costs—£10,000 each. The force said in a statement, “Whilst there are no issues of misconduct involving any officer in relation to this matter, Hertfordshire Constabulary has accepted liability solely on the basis that the legal test around necessity of arrest was not met in this instance.” The payout, the force added, was “significantly above that required by the case law” and reflected its “desire to bring matters to a conclusion.”
Despite this, Hertfordshire Constabulary defended its decision to investigate the couple, citing the volume of messages sent to the school and concerns about possible escalation. Chief Constable Andy Prophet maintained they had “lawful reason” to detain Allen and Levine at the time. However, the force’s lawyers later conceded that the necessity test for arrest under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 was not satisfied, rendering the arrest unlawful.
The incident has drawn sharp criticism from free speech advocates. Bryn Harris, chief legal counsel at the Free Speech Union, told the Daily Mail, “A good place to start would be a recognition that the criminal law is not a tool for protecting delicate feelings, or wounded reputations, and officers must not allow it to be abused in this way.”
Jonathan Ash-Edwards, Hertfordshire’s Police and Crime Commissioner, also weighed in, telling the BBC, “There has clearly been a fundamental breakdown in relationships between a school and parents that shouldn’t have become a police matter.”
Allen and Levine said the most important outcome for them was the police’s acknowledgment that their arrest was unlawful. “It was quite an emotional moment when we got the news from the police a couple of days ago,” Allen told the BBC. “I think, overall, we were just really pleased that Hertfordshire Constabulary have recognized that this shouldn’t have happened, and recognized that they made quite a serious mistake.”
Still, Levine expressed concern that others might face similar treatment without the same public attention. “There does need to be change. Every police force needs to look at their actions, look at their decisions, and make sure that they really are doing the right thing,” she told The Guardian.
The case has ignited a wider debate about the boundary between robust parental advocacy and criminal harassment, as well as the role of police in disputes involving public institutions and citizens. Some argue that schools and public bodies should have channels for addressing criticism and complaints without resorting to police intervention, especially in cases where there is no evidence of threats or abuse. Others maintain that persistent or public campaigns can cross a line and become disruptive, warranting official action.
In the aftermath, Allen hopes the debate around their case “has a positive effect on how these issues are handled in future.” He told The Times, “The police should not be a tool for public authorities to close down legitimate comment and scrutiny.”
For now, the couple’s ordeal stands as a cautionary tale for schools, police, and parents alike—a reminder that, in the digital age, the line between legitimate protest and criminal conduct can be perilously thin, but the consequences of overreach are all too real.
