Racially Aggravated Crime Prosecutions
🔹 Overview: Racially Aggravated Crime – Meaning and Legal Framework
Under Sections 28–32 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (UK), an offence is considered racially aggravated if:
The offender demonstrates hostility towards the victim based on race (real or presumed), or
The offence is motivated (wholly or partly) by hostility towards members of a racial group.
This aggravation increases both culpability and sentence severity, as courts see it as attacking the dignity and equality of victims and communities.
Common racially aggravated offences include:
Assault (s.29)
Criminal damage (s.30)
Public order offences (s.31)
Harassment or alarm/distress (s.32)
🔹 Key Legal Principles
Demonstration of hostility means the offender shows racial hostility during, before, or after the crime.
Motivation by hostility means the act was partly driven by racial hatred, even if other motives existed.
The victim’s reaction (e.g. saying “I wasn’t offended”) is irrelevant; the focus is on the offender’s conduct.
Timing and connection between the offence and racial words/actions must be clear.
🔸 Detailed Case Law Summaries
1. DPP v Rogers [2007] UKHL 8
Facts:
Rogers was involved in a public disturbance outside a bar and shouted racial slurs towards three Spanish women, calling them “bloody foreigners”. He was charged with a racially aggravated public order offence under s.31(1)(c) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.
Legal Issue:
Did the phrase “bloody foreigners” fall within the meaning of hostility based on a “racial group”? Could “foreigners” be treated as a racial group?
Judgment:
The House of Lords held that “foreigners” can indeed amount to a “racial group”. The court took a broad and purposive interpretation of the law to ensure its social aim was achieved — preventing racial hostility. The phrase clearly expressed antagonism towards a group distinguished by nationality or ethnic origin.
Significance:
This case broadened the legal meaning of “racial group” and confirmed that common language hostility (not technical racial classification) suffices for racially aggravated offences.
2. DPP v McFarlane [2002] EWHC 485 (Admin)
Facts:
McFarlane was involved in a parking dispute with a neighbour, during which he called the victim racial names such as “black bastard”. He claimed he was simply angry about the parking issue, not the victim’s race.
Legal Issue:
Whether racial hostility must be the sole motive, or whether mixed motives could still lead to conviction.
Judgment:
The High Court held that it is not necessary for racial hostility to be the only motive. It is sufficient if racial hostility played any part in the offender’s behaviour. The racial slurs themselves demonstrated hostility based on race, fulfilling the aggravation element.
Significance:
This case confirmed that co-existing motives (anger + racial hostility) still amount to racially aggravated crime.
3. R v Woods (2001)
Facts:
Woods assaulted a nightclub doorman and called him a “black bastard”. The victim testified that he “was not particularly bothered” by the insult.
Legal Issue:
Whether the victim’s reaction determines if an offence is racially aggravated.
Judgment:
The court ruled that the victim’s subjective reaction is irrelevant. What matters is whether the offender demonstrated racial hostility. The use of racial abuse during the assault satisfied the requirement for aggravation.
Significance:
Established that courts focus solely on the offender’s conduct and words, not the victim’s feelings.
4. R v Fitzgerald [2003] EWCA Crim 2875
Facts:
Fitzgerald was charged with racially aggravated harassment after repeatedly directing racial abuse at his neighbour, including using highly offensive racial language. He argued he was angry over noise issues, not race.
Legal Issue:
Whether evidence of repeated use of racial words is sufficient to prove racial hostility.
Judgment:
The Court of Appeal held that consistent use of racial language during the incidents was clear evidence of racial hostility. Even if there was another dispute, the deliberate inclusion of racial insults showed that race was a motivating factor.
Significance:
Clarified that repetition and deliberate use of racial insults are strong indicators of racial aggravation and cannot be excused as “anger” or “habitual language.”
5. R v White [2001] EWCA Crim 216
Facts:
White, a passenger in a car, shouted racial abuse (“Paki bastard”) at a pedestrian. He argued that because there was no direct violence or contact, it could not be an aggravated offence.
Legal Issue:
Does verbal racial abuse alone constitute an aggravated public order offence?
Judgment:
The Court of Appeal held yes — racial abuse intended to cause alarm or distress amounts to a racially aggravated public order offence. The racial hostility was explicit, and physical contact was not required.
Significance:
Affirmed that verbal racial abuse can independently constitute a racially aggravated offence.
6. R v Davies [2004] EWCA Crim 2836
Facts:
Davies committed criminal damage by smashing the window of a takeaway restaurant owned by Asian individuals and shouted racial abuse during the act.
Legal Issue:
Could the timing of racial abuse after the damage still make the offence racially aggravated?
Judgment:
The court ruled that as long as the racial hostility is part of the same sequence of events — either immediately before, during, or after — it can qualify as racially aggravated under s.28(1)(a).
Significance:
Clarified that temporal proximity is enough; racial words or acts immediately following the offence can establish racial aggravation.
7. R v Bonehill-Paine (2016)
Facts:
Joshua Bonehill-Paine conducted a sustained online antisemitic campaign against MP Luciana Berger, posting derogatory images and messages online.
Legal Issue:
Whether online conduct could fall within the racially/religiously aggravated harassment provisions.
Judgment:
The Crown Court held that online abuse campaigns are covered by the racially aggravated harassment offences, as the digital medium still communicates hostility. Bonehill-Paine was sentenced to imprisonment.
Significance:
Pioneering case on racially aggravated online hate crime, showing that modern digital conduct is equally punishable.
🔹 Legal Takeaways
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Mixed Motives | Racial hostility need not be the only motive (McFarlane). |
| Victim’s Reaction | Victim’s indifference doesn’t matter (Woods). |
| Verbal Abuse | Racial slurs alone can make the offence aggravated (White). |
| Timing | Hostility shown immediately before or after still counts (Davies). |
| Online Hate | Digital harassment can qualify as racially aggravated (Bonehill-Paine). |
| Broad Meaning of Race | “Foreigners” or nationality distinctions are included (Rogers). |
🔹 Conclusion
Racially aggravated offences play a crucial role in protecting equality and public order. Courts interpret the law broadly to cover all forms of racial hostility, whether expressed through physical assault, verbal abuse, or online communication. The discussed cases establish that the core test lies in the offender’s demonstration of hostility, not the victim’s perception, and that mixed motives or timing gaps do not reduce culpability.
RELATED Blog
0 comments