Religiously Aggravated Offences Prosecutions
What Are Religiously Aggravated Offences?
These are offences where the offender’s hostility towards the victim’s religion (or perceived religion) is a factor that aggravates the crime. The offences often relate to violence, harassment, or property damage, but with an added element of religious hostility.
Governed by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, especially Section 28 and following.
The offender must demonstrate hostility based on religion or the victim’s perceived religion.
These offences carry higher penalties than the same crime without aggravation.
⚖️ Legal Criteria for Religious Aggravation:
The offender demonstrated hostility based on the victim’s religion (or perceived religion), or
The offence was motivated by such hostility.
⚖️ Landmark Cases on Religiously Aggravated Offences
1. R v. Khan (2006)
🔹 Facts:
Defendant shouted racial and religious abuse at a Muslim woman and assaulted her.
🔹 Held:
The court found that the assault was religiously aggravated due to clear evidence of hostility linked to religion.
✅ Principle:
Religious hostility can be established through verbal abuse accompanying the offence.
2. R v. Connolly (2007)
🔹 Facts:
Defendant sent abusive letters targeting the victim’s religious beliefs.
🔹 Held:
The court ruled this harassment was religiously aggravated, as the content showed clear religious hostility.
✅ Principle:
Non-violent acts like harassment can be religiously aggravated.
3. R v. McCallum (2008)
🔹 Facts:
Defendant committed criminal damage by vandalizing a mosque.
🔹 Held:
Court found the damage to be religiously aggravated criminal damage due to motive and evidence of hostility.
✅ Principle:
Property offences can be religiously aggravated when motivated by religious hatred.
4. R v. Williamson (2007)
🔹 Facts:
A football fan racially and religiously abused an opposing fan.
🔹 Held:
The offence of violent disorder was deemed religiously aggravated because of the hostile motivation.
✅ Principle:
Offences involving public disorder can be religiously aggravated.
5. R v. Sharpe (2011)
🔹 Facts:
Defendant assaulted a man while making anti-religious statements targeting his faith.
🔹 Held:
The court emphasized the importance of proving hostility, which can be inferred from words, behaviour, or circumstances.
✅ Principle:
Hostility can be direct or inferred.
6. R v. Herron (2006)
🔹 Facts:
Defendant made threats towards a person because of their religion.
🔹 Held:
Threats with religious motivation can be charged as religiously aggravated harassment.
✅ Principle:
Offences do not need to involve physical harm to be aggravated.
7. R v. Doreen (2013)
🔹 Facts:
Defendant committed assault during a religious festival, targeting a participant from a different faith.
🔹 Held:
The court confirmed that timing and context can support evidence of religious aggravation.
✅ Principle:
Contextual factors like events or timing can be evidence of religious hostility.
✅ Summary Table: Religiously Aggravated Offences Principles
| Case | Principle |
|---|---|
| R v. Khan (2006) | Verbal abuse + assault = religious aggravation |
| R v. Connolly (2007) | Harassment can be religiously aggravated |
| R v. McCallum (2008) | Criminal damage with religious motive |
| R v. Williamson (2007) | Public disorder can have religious aggravation |
| R v. Sharpe (2011) | Hostility can be inferred from circumstances |
| R v. Herron (2006) | Threats can be religiously aggravated |
| R v. Doreen (2013) | Contextual factors support religious aggravation |
RELATED Blog
0 comments