Criminal Liability For Hate Crimes Against Migrants
1. Understanding Criminal Liability for Hate Crimes Against Migrants
Definition
A hate crime is a criminal act motivated by bias or prejudice toward a person or group based on characteristics such as race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or immigration status.
When the target is a migrant, the hate motivation is often tied to xenophobia or national origin discrimination.
Core Elements
To establish criminal liability, prosecutors must prove:
The underlying criminal act (e.g., assault, murder, vandalism, or harassment).
Bias motivation — that the crime was committed because of the victim’s identity as a migrant, foreigner, or ethnic outsider.
Causation and intent — direct link between the offender’s bias and the criminal act.
Punishment Enhancement
Many countries enhance penalties for hate crimes. For instance:
In the United States, federal and state statutes impose sentence enhancements.
In the UK, the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and Sentencing Act 2020 allow higher penalties where racial or xenophobic aggravation is proven.
The European Union Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA mandates all EU states to criminalize hate-motivated offenses.
2. Case Law Illustrations
Case 1: Wisconsin v. Mitchell (1993) 508 U.S. 476 (United States)
Facts:
Todd Mitchell, an African-American youth, instigated an assault on a white boy after discussing a scene from a movie involving racial violence. The attack left the victim unconscious.
Legal Issue:
Whether enhanced punishment for a racially motivated crime violated Mitchell’s First Amendment rights (freedom of thought).
Judgment:
The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the hate-crime penalty enhancement statute, ruling that the law punished conduct, not beliefs. Bias motivation was a legitimate aggravating factor.
Significance for Migrant Hate Crimes:
This case established that bias-motivated intent can lawfully increase criminal liability — forming a foundation for punishing crimes against migrants where xenophobia is a motivating factor.
Case 2: R v. Rogers [2007] EWCA Crim 248 (United Kingdom)
Facts:
Defendant Rogers verbally abused three Spanish women, calling them racist names and physically assaulted one. He argued that his remarks were spontaneous and not racially motivated.
Legal Issue:
Whether the offense was “racially aggravated” under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.
Judgment:
The Court of Appeal held that even spontaneous racial hostility demonstrated during or immediately before the attack could establish racial aggravation. Rogers’ conduct clearly reflected bias based on nationality.
Significance:
This case affirmed that migrants or foreigners are protected under hate-crime laws as victims of racial or xenophobic attacks, even when the offense arises spontaneously.
Case 3: Pavlovic v. Croatia (Application no. 17124/13, European Court of Human Rights, 2018)
Facts:
A Serbian national living in Croatia was assaulted by locals who shouted ethnic slurs (“Serb dog”) and damaged his property. Domestic courts treated the act as ordinary assault, ignoring the hate motive.
Legal Issue:
Whether the Croatian authorities failed to investigate and prosecute the hate motivation, violating Article 14 (non-discrimination) and Article 3 (inhuman treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Judgment:
The ECtHR found Croatia violated the Convention by failing to investigate the hate motive, emphasizing that hate crimes require special diligence and acknowledgment of xenophobic motives.
Significance:
States are obligated to investigate hate motives in crimes against migrants; failure to do so can constitute a violation of human rights law.
Case 4: People v. Morales (2001) 281 A.D.2d 157 (New York, USA)
Facts:
Morales and others attacked two Mexican immigrants, shouting anti-immigrant slurs. They were charged with second-degree assault as a hate crime under New York Penal Law §485.05.
Legal Issue:
Whether the prosecution proved that bias against nationality was a “substantial motivating factor.”
Judgment:
The court upheld the hate crime conviction, finding that racial and national-origin slurs during the attack demonstrated bias motivation.
Significance:
Reinforced the evidentiary role of slurs, language, and context in proving bias motivation — a critical aspect for establishing criminal liability in anti-migrant violence.
Case 5: The El Ejido Riots Case (Spain, 2000)
Facts:
In the town of El Ejido, Spain, widespread violence erupted after a migrant worker was accused of killing a local woman. Hundreds of Moroccan agricultural workers were attacked; their homes and shops were destroyed.
Legal Issue:
Authorities faced criticism for failing to protect migrant workers and for lenient treatment of perpetrators.
Judgment & Outcome:
Spanish courts eventually convicted several individuals for hate-motivated property destruction and assault, citing racist and xenophobic motivations. The case highlighted institutional failures in early law enforcement response.
Significance:
Demonstrated how mass xenophobic violence can constitute hate crimes and how state negligence in protecting migrants can result in both criminal liability for perpetrators and international accountability for the state.
3. Summary of Legal Principles
| Legal Principle | Case Reference | Key Takeaway |
|---|---|---|
| Hate motive increases criminal liability | Wisconsin v. Mitchell | Enhanced sentencing justified |
| Spontaneous racial hostility counts | R v. Rogers | No need for premeditation |
| States must investigate hate motives | Pavlovic v. Croatia | Procedural duty under ECHR |
| Bias can be inferred from slurs or context | People v. Morales | Proof through conduct and language |
| Collective violence against migrants is punishable | El Ejido Riots Case | Hate motive extends to mob actions |
4. Conclusion
Criminal liability for hate crimes against migrants is twofold:
Individual liability — perpetrators face enhanced punishment due to bias motivation.
State responsibility — authorities must effectively investigate, prosecute, and prevent xenophobic violence.
Courts across jurisdictions consistently affirm that migrant status or foreign nationality is a protected characteristic under hate-crime statutes. Failure to recognize or address the hate motive not only weakens justice but can also breach international human rights obligations.
RELATED Blog
comments