There was an argument over payment for food with the Turkish chef of a takeaway kebab shop during the course of which the defendant used the words ‘bloody foreigners’ and pushed the shop window causing it to crack. The justices doubted whether the word ‘foreigners’ constituted a racial group but, more significantly for this case, found that the actions were the result of annoyance following the dispute over payment so that there was no case to answer in relation to racially aggravated criminal damage because hostility based on race had not been demonstrated. The prosecutor appealed by way of case stated.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The 1988 Act defined racial group as ‘a group of persons defined by reference to race, colour, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic ornational origins.’ That definition was satisfied in a non-inclusive as well as an inclusive sense. The magistrates had erred in deciding there were two possible and separate motives for the offence. They should have been looked at cumulatively. ‘as a matter of construction in the context of the case the word ‘foreigners’ was capable of describing a ‘racial group’ defined by reference to nationality and/or national origins within the meaning of section 28(4) of the 1998 Act.’ and in the context of racial hostility directed by someone in this country to someone whose, or whose family’s, origin is not in this country, it is inescapable that the word ‘foreigner’ may, depending on the context, qualify as demonstration within section 28(1)(a) of a ‘group of persons defined by reference to race … or national origins’ within the definition in section 28(4), a minority, albeit now a substantial minority, in national terms in the population of this country.’ (Auld LJ)
Auld LJ, Richards J
[2004] EWHC 1453 (Admin), Times 23-Jul-2004, [2004] 1 WLR 2758
Bailii
Crime and Disorder Act 1998 28(1)(a)
England and Wales
Cited by:
Applied – Attorney General’s Reference (No 4 of 2004) CACD 22-Apr-2005
The defendant was accused of having racially abused the complainant by referring to him as an ‘immigrant doctor’ before the assault. The trial judge had held that the word ‘immigrant’ was so wide in its possible application as not to be capable of . .
Cited – Rogers, Regina v CACD 10-Nov-2005
The defendant appealed his conviction for racially aggravated abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent to cause fear or to provoke violence. He was driving his motorised scooter and came across three Spanish women. In the course of an . .
Cited – Rogers, Regina v HL 28-Feb-2007
The House was asked whether the use of the phrases ‘bloody foreigners’ and ‘get back to your own country’ counted to make a disturbance created by the defendant a racially aggravated crime.
Held: (Baroness Hale of Richmond) ‘The mischiefs . .
Cited – Regina v SH CACD 3-Aug-2010
The prosecutor had appealed immediately against the judge’s withdrawal of a charge of racially aggravated use of insulting words or behaviour. The judge then ignored his obligation to continue the trial without mentioning the issue to the jury. He . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 June 2021; Ref: scu.198522
