Hate Crime Against Religious Groups
Overview: Hate Crime Against Religious Groups in the UK
The Public Order Act 1986, especially Part IIIA, makes it an offense to use threatening, abusive, or insulting words or behavior with the intent to stir up religious hatred, or where such hatred is likely to be stirred up.
The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 introduced aggravated offenses, where crimes motivated by hostility towards religion (or perceived religion) carry heavier penalties.
Sentencing guidelines require courts to treat offenses motivated by religious hostility more seriously.
Protection extends to all religious groups, including Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Sikhism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and others.
Detailed Case Explanations
1. R v. Choudhury and Iqbal [2016]
Facts: The defendants verbally abused and physically assaulted two Muslim men on a London street, shouting religiously offensive slurs, including anti-Muslim and Islamophobic insults.
Legal Basis: Charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm with an aggravation of religious hostility under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.
Outcome: Both defendants were convicted and received custodial sentences. The religious aggravation led to a significant increase in sentence length.
Significance: Demonstrated that religious hostility aggravates sentencing in assaults and hate crimes.
2. R v. Collins [2006] UKHL 40
Facts: Collins made repeated phone calls to an MP’s office, using racially and religiously offensive language targeting Muslims.
Legal Basis: Charged under the Communications Act 2003, Section 127, for sending grossly offensive messages, with evidence of religious hostility.
Outcome: Convicted and sentence upheld by the House of Lords.
Significance: Reinforced that religiously motivated hate speech online or by phone can lead to prosecution.
3. R v. Norwood [2003]
Facts: Norwood displayed a poster showing the Twin Towers burning with the slogan “Islam out of Britain” in his home window, visible to the public.
Legal Basis: Convicted under the Public Order Act 1986 for using threatening or abusive words likely to stir up religious hatred.
Outcome: Conviction upheld.
Significance: Highlighted that public displays intended to stir religious hatred, even from private property, are prosecutable.
4. R v. Bowes and Another [2004]
Facts: The defendants made anti-Semitic comments and distributed leaflets accusing Jewish people of various conspiracies.
Legal Basis: Charged under the Public Order Act 1986, Part IIIA (incitement to religious hatred).
Outcome: Both defendants were convicted.
Significance: Demonstrated that distribution of hateful material targeting religious groups is punishable, and courts take hate propaganda seriously.
5. R v. Chabloz [2018]
Facts: Alison Chabloz posted songs on YouTube denying the Holocaust and mocking Jewish people, constituting anti-Semitic hate speech.
Legal Basis: Convicted under the Communications Act 2003 for sending grossly offensive material with religious hatred elements.
Outcome: Convicted and sentenced to community orders and fines.
Significance: Clarified that online hate speech denying historical tragedies with religious hatred is prosecutable.
6. R v. Thakkar [2017]
Facts: Thakkar repeatedly targeted Hindu temples with graffiti containing threatening and abusive religious slurs.
Legal Basis: Charged with criminal damage aggravated by religious hostility.
Outcome: Convicted and sentenced to imprisonment.
Significance: Shows that property damage with religious motivation is treated as an aggravated hate crime.
7. R v. Lloyd [2020]
Facts: Lloyd sent threatening emails to a mosque, including religious slurs and threats of violence.
Legal Basis: Prosecution under Malicious Communications Act 1988 with religious aggravation.
Outcome: Convicted and received a custodial sentence.
Significance: Demonstrates that threatening communications targeting religious groups can be criminally prosecuted.
Key Legal Themes and Principles
| Theme | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Aggravated Offences | Crimes motivated by religious hostility lead to harsher sentences under Crime and Disorder Act 1998. |
| Public Order Act Protections | Use of threatening or abusive language/materials to stir up religious hatred is criminal. |
| Communications Act 2003 | Sending grossly offensive messages online or via communications, especially with religious hatred, is prosecutable. |
| Broad Scope | Protection covers all religious groups, ensuring equality before the law. |
| Sentencing | Courts impose stricter sentences where religious hostility is evident or proven. |
Conclusion
The UK legal system treats hate crimes against religious groups with serious concern, ensuring that both violent and non-violent offenses motivated by religious hostility are prosecuted rigorously. The combination of the Public Order Act, Crime and Disorder Act, and Communications Act creates a robust legal framework to deter religious hate crimes and hold perpetrators accountable.
RELATED Blog
0 comments