The prosecutor appealed from the magistrates’ acquittal of the defendant, who was of Asian origin, and who had assaulted the victim, also of Asian origin, calling him a ‘white man’s arse-licker’ and a ‘brown Englishman’.
Held: This did not demonstrate hostility towards Asians.
‘I will reject also an argument put before us by the Respondent, to the effect that section 28(1)(a) has no application to: ‘… street arguments when insults may be thrown without thought being given to whether the same are racially abusive, which conduct is already covered by other offences …’
Were it otherwise, this argument runs: ‘… as soon as one racial word is uttered – whatever the motivation – then there is no defence to the charge.’
That, of course, is not so. It will always be necessary for the prosecution to prove the demonstration of racial hostility, although the use of racially abusive insults will ordinarily, no doubt, be found sufficient for that purpose.’
Judges:
Simon Brown LJ, Klevan J
Citations:
[2000] Crim LR 756, [2000] EWHC 1575 (QB)
Links:
Statutes:
Crime and Disorder Act 1998 29(1)(c) 29(3)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Doubted – 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 – L, Regina (on the Application of) v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and Another CA 1-Mar-2007
The court considered the proper content of an enhanced criminal record certificate. The claimant said that it should contain only matter relating to actual or potential criminal activity.
Held: As to the meaning of section 115: ‘if Parliament . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime
Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.249363