DOCSLIB.ORG

Hate Crime: the Case for Extending the Existing Offences

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Law Commission Consultation Paper No 213 HATE CRIME: THE CASE FOR EXTENDING THE EXISTING OFFENCES A Consultation Paper ii THE LAW COMMISSION – HOW WE CONSULT About the Law Commission: The Law Commission was set up by section 1 of the Law Commissions Act 1965 for the purpose of promoting the reform of the law. The Law Commissioners are: The Rt Hon Lord Justice Lloyd Jones, Chairman, Professor Elizabeth Cooke, David Hertzell, Professor David Ormerod QC and Frances Patterson QC. The Chief Executive is Elaine Lorimer. Topic of this consultation: To consider the law and procedure on some aspects of hate crime. This consultation paper addresses: The aggravated offences under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, and the case for extending them to create offences involving hostility on the grounds of disability, sexual orientation and transgender identity. Particular reference is made also to the enhanced sentencing provisions under the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The stirring up of hatred offences under the Public Order Act 1986, and the case for extending them to include hatred on the grounds of disability and transgender identity. Geographical scope: This consultation paper applies to the law of England and Wales. Availability of materials: The consultation paper is available on our website at http://lawcommission.justice.gov.uk/consultations/hate_crime.htm. We have prepared some additional information relevant to this consultation which we have published on our website as a set of appendices, as follows: Appendix A: Hate crime and freedom of expression under the European Convention on Human Rights Appendix B: History of hate crime legislation Appendix C: Impact assessment Duration of the consultation: 27 June 2013 to 27 September 2013. Comments may be sent: By email to [email protected] OR By post to Catherine Heard, Law Commission, Steel House, 11 Tothill Street, London SW1H 9LJ Tel: 020 3334 0275 / Fax: 020 3334 0201 We are happy to accept responses in any form – but we would prefer, if possible, to receive emails attaching the pre-prepared response form available on our website at http://lawcommission.justice.gov.uk/consultations/hate_crime.htm iii After the consultation: In the light of the responses we receive, we will decide on our final recommendations and present them to Government. Consultation Principles: The Law Commission follows the Consultation Principles set out by the Cabinet Office, which provide guidance on type and scale of consultation, duration, timing, accessibility and transparency. The Principles are available on the Cabinet Office website at https://update.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/resource-library/consultation-principles-guidance. Freedom of Information statement We may publish or disclose information you provide us in response to this consultation, including personal information. For example, we may publish an extract of your response in Law Commission publications, or publish the response in its entirety. We may also be required to disclose the information, such as in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000. If you want information that you provide to be treated as confidential please contact us first, but we cannot give an assurance that confidentiality can be maintained in all circumstances. An automatic disclaimer generated by your IT system will not be regarded as binding on the Law Commission. The Law Commission will process your personal data in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998. iv THE LAW COMMISSION HATE CRIME: THE CASE FOR EXTENDING THE EXISTING OFFENCES CONTENTS Paragraph Page CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1 Background to the project 1.1 1 Hate Crime: the response of the Criminal Justice System 1.9 2 (1) Recording hate crime 1.11 3 (2) Aggravated offences 1.14 3 (3) Stirring up offences 1.15 4 (4) Enhanced sentencing 1.19 5 Some statistical context 1.21 5 Recorded hate crime 1.22 6 Prosecuted hate crime 1.23 6 The way we have worked 1.26 7 The structure of this paper 1.28 7 Chapter 2 – The current law 1.28 7 Chapter 3 – Aggravated offences: provisional 1.29 7 proposals Chapter 4 – Stirring up offences: provisional 1.34 9 proposals Purpose of the consultation 1.40 10 Appendices 1.41 10 Acknowledgments 1.42 10 CHAPTER 2: CURRENT LAW 12 Introduction 2.1 12 The aggravated offences 2.5 12 The basic offences 2.7 13 The two limbs of hostility 2.10 14 Hostility 2.13 15 v Paragraph Page Limb (a): “Demonstrates hostility” 2.14 16 What constitutes a demonstration of 2.14 16 hostility? When must hostility be demonstrated? 2.19 17 “Presumed membership” 2.22 17 Limb (b): “Motivated by hostility” 2.27 18 What constitutes motivation? 2.27 18 When must the motivation occur? 2.29 19 How is motivation proved? 2.31 19 Need a victim experience the hostile 2.34 20 motivation? Aggravating circumstances common to limbs (a) 2.35 20 and (b) Hostility based on other factors 2.35 20 Meaning of “racial group” 2.37 21 Meaning of “religious group” 2.40 22 Alternative verdicts and alternative 2.42 22 charges Sentencing 2.47 24 Stirring up racial hatred – offences under the Public Order 2.51 26 Act 1986 Introduction 2.51 26 Stirring up racial hatred: common features of the 2.53 26 offences Meaning of “threatening, abusive or 2.54 27 insulting” Meaning of “racial” 2.55 27 Meaning of “hatred” 2.57 27 Need an identifiable victim be threatened, abused 2.60 28 or insulted? The six offences 2.62 28 Use of words or behaviour, or display of written 2.62 28 material: section 18 Elements of the offence 2.63 28 Publishing or distributing written material: section 2.69 30 19 vi Paragraph Page Elements of the offence 2.70 30 Defence 2.74 31 Public performance of a play: section 20 2.77 32 Elements of the offence 2.78 33 Defence 2.81 33 Distributing, showing or playing a recording: 2.82 34 section 21 Elements of the offence 2.83 34 Defence 2.87 35 Broadcasting: section 22 2.88 35 Elements of the offence 2.89 35 Defences 2.92 36 Possession of racially inflammatory material: 2.94 37 section 23 Elements of the offence 2.95 37 Defences 2.100 38 Jurisdiction 2.103 39 Stirring up religious hatred, or hatred on grounds of sexual 2.105 40 orientation – offences under the Public Order Act 1986 Meaning of “religious hatred” 2.110 41 Meaning of “hatred on the grounds of sexual 2.112 41 orientation” Protection of freedom of expression 2.116 42 Religious belief 2.117 42 Sexual conduct or practice 2.122 43 Mental element 2.125 44 Matters common to all stirring up offences 2.126 44 Attorney General’s consent 2.126 44 Penalties 2.128 45 Enhanced sentencing provisions 2.129 45 Introduction 2.129 45 Specific aggravating factors 2.134 46 Section 145: racial or religious 2.136 47 aggravation vii Paragraph Page Section 146: aggravation related to disability, sexual orientation or 2.139 48 transgender identity The approach to sentencing under 2.161 55 sections 145 and 146 “Determination of minimum term in relation to mandatory life sentence”: Schedule 21 to the CJA 2.169 57 2003 Starting points 2.171 58 Aggravating factors 2.172 58 General aggravating factors: section 156(1) of the 2.176 59 CJA 2003 Sentencing guidelines 2.178 59 CHAPTER 3: THE AGGRAVATED OFFENCES: 61 PROVISIONAL PROPOSALS Introduction 3.1 61 The scale and nature of the problem 3.8 62 Crown Prosecution Service data 3.9 62 Examples of hostile conduct identified by disability, transgender and LGB 3.14 64 organisations Reform option 1: enhanced sentencing provisions 3.18 65 (1) Ability to deal with the prevalence and nature 3.21 65 of offending (2) Ease of charge selection 3.24 66 (3) Maximum penalties 3.26 66 (4) Labelling 3.29 68 (5) Recording on the Police National Computer 3.33 69 (6) Sufficiency of the sentencing model in 3.34 69 practice (7) Examination of hostility 3.39 71 (8) Availability of challenge 3.42 72 Possible proposals to improve the operation of 3.46 73 the enhanced sentencing provisions (1) Clearer sentencing guidance for 3.47 73 courts viii Paragraph Page (2) Recording on the Police National 3.52 75 Computer Reform option 2: creating new aggravated offences 3.56 75 (1) Would new offences deal with the prevalence 3.58 76 and nature of offending? (2) To what extent do existing criminal offences already address the conduct that new aggravated 3.60 76 offences would address? (3) Does the existing criminal law adequately 3.63 77 address the harms suffered? (4) Are existing offences and/or initiatives short of criminalisation sufficient to encourage victims and 3.65 77 witnesses to report hate crimes (5) What greater deterrent effect might any new 3.68 78 aggravated offences have? (6) Do the existing sentencing provisions provide 3.71 79 a label that adequately reflects the criminality? (7) Is there a risk that the new aggravated 3.75 81 offences will be ineffective? Models for new offences 3.77 81 Defining the new protected characteristics 3.78 81 The relationship between any new offences and 3.82 82 section 146 DISABILITY: A new aggravated offence 3.84 83 (1) Defining “disability” 3.86 83 (a) The CJA 2003, section 146(5) 3.87 83 (b) The Equality Act 2010 3.92 84 (c) The United Nations Convention on the 3.95 85 Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2) Demonstration of hostility 3.101 86 Definition of “disability” 3.101 86 Membership of a group 3.102 87 (3) Motivation by hostility 3.104 87 Vulnerability vs hostility 3.105 87 SEXUAL ORIENTATION: A new aggravated 3.111 89 offence (1) Defining “sexual orientation” 3.112 89 ix Paragraph Page (2) Demonstration of hostility 3.117 90 Definition of “sexual orientation” 3.117 90 Membership of a group 3.118
Recommended publications
  • Mandatory Data Retention by the Backdoor

    Mandatory Data Retention by the Backdoor

    statewatch monitoring the state and civil liberties in the UK and Europe vol 12 no 6 November-December 2002 Mandatory data retention by the backdoor EU: The majority of member states are adopting mandatory data retention and favour an EU-wide measure UK: Telecommunications surveillance has more than doubled under the Labour government A special analysis on the surveillance of telecommunications by states have, or are planning to, introduce mandatory data Statewatch shows that: i) the authorised surveillance in England, retention (only two member states appear to be resisting this Wales and Scotland has more than doubled since the Labour move). In due course it can be expected that a "harmonising" EU government came to power in 1997; ii) mandatory data retention measure will follow. is so far being introduced at national level in 9 out of 15 EU members states and 10 out of 15 favour a binding EU Framework Terrorism pretext for mandatory data retention Decision; iii) the introduction in the EU of the mandatory Mandatory data retention had been demanded by EU law retention of telecommunications data (ie: keeping details of all enforcement agencies and discussed in the EU working parties phone-calls, mobile phone calls and location, faxes, e-mails and and international fora for several years prior to 11 September internet usage of the whole population of Europe for at least 12 2000. On 20 September 2001 the EU Justice and Home Affairs months) is intended to combat crime in general. Council put it to the top of the agenda as one of the measures to combat terrorism.
  • Far-Right Anthology

    Far-Right Anthology

    COUNTERINGDEFENDING EUROPE: “GLOBAL BRITAIN” ANDTHE THEFAR FUTURE RIGHT: OFAN EUROPEAN ANTHOLOGY GEOPOLITICSEDITED BY DR RAKIB EHSAN AND DR PAUL STOTT BY JAMES ROGERS DEMOCRACY | FREEDOM | HUMAN RIGHTS ReportApril No 2020. 2018/1 Published in 2020 by The Henry Jackson Society The Henry Jackson Society Millbank Tower 21-24 Millbank London SW1P 4QP Registered charity no. 1140489 Tel: +44 (0)20 7340 4520 www.henryjacksonsociety.org © The Henry Jackson Society, 2020. All rights reserved. The views expressed in this publication are those of the author and are not necessarily indicative of those of The Henry Jackson Society or its Trustees. Title: “COUNTERING THE FAR RIGHT: AN ANTHOLOGY” Edited by Dr Rakib Ehsan and Dr Paul Stott Front Cover: Edinburgh, Scotland, 23rd March 2019. Demonstration by the Scottish Defence League (SDL), with supporters of National Front and white pride, and a counter demonstration by Unite Against Facism demonstrators, outside the Scottish Parliament, in Edinburgh. The Scottish Defence League claim their protest was against the sexual abuse of minors, but the opposition claim the rally masks the SDL’s racist beliefs. Credit: Jeremy Sutton-Hibbert/Alamy Live News. COUNTERINGDEFENDING EUROPE: “GLOBAL BRITAIN” ANDTHE THEFAR FUTURE RIGHT: OFAN EUROPEAN ANTHOLOGY GEOPOLITICSEDITED BY DR RAKIB EHSAN AND DR PAUL STOTT BY JAMES ROGERS DEMOCRACY | FREEDOM | HUMAN RIGHTS ReportApril No 2020. 2018/1 Countering the Far Right: An Anthology About the Editors Dr Paul Stott joined the Henry Jackson Society’s Centre on Radicalisation and Terrorism as a Research Fellow in January 2019. An experienced academic, he received an MSc in Terrorism Studies (Distinction) from the University of East London in 2007, and his PhD in 2015 from the University of East Anglia for the research “British Jihadism: The Detail and the Denial”.
  • Internal Brakes the British Extreme Right (Pdf

    Internal Brakes the British Extreme Right (Pdf

    FEBRUARY 2019 The Internal Brakes on Violent Escalation The British extreme right in the 1990s ANNEX B Joel Busher, Coventry University Donald Holbrook, University College London Graham Macklin, Oslo University This report is the second empirical case study, produced out of The Internal Brakes on Violent Escalation: A Descriptive Typology programme, funded by CREST. You can read the other two case studies; The Trans-national and British Islamist Extremist Groups and The Animal Liberation Movement, plus the full report at: https://crestresearch.ac.uk/news/internal- brakes-violent-escalation-a-descriptive-typology/ To find out more information about this programme, and to see other outputs from the team, visit the CREST website at: www.crestresearch.ac.uk/projects/internal-brakes-violent-escalation/ About CREST The Centre for Research and Evidence on Security Threats (CREST) is a national hub for understanding, countering and mitigating security threats. It is an independent centre, commissioned by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) and funded in part by the UK security and intelligence agencies (ESRC Award: ES/N009614/1). www.crestresearch.ac.uk ©2019 CREST Creative Commons 4.0 BY-NC-SA licence. www.crestresearch.ac.uk/copyright TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................5 2. INTERNAL BRAKES ON VIOLENCE WITHIN THE BRITISH EXTREME RIGHT .................10 2.1 BRAKE 1: STRATEGIC LOGIC .......................................................................................................................................10
  • Future Identities: Changing Identities in the UK – the Next 10 Years DR 19: Identity Related Crime in the UK David S

    Future Identities: Changing Identities in the UK – the Next 10 Years DR 19: Identity Related Crime in the UK David S

    Future Identities: Changing identities in the UK – the next 10 years DR 19: Identity Related Crime in the UK David S. Wall Durham University January 2013 This review has been commissioned as part of the UK Government’s Foresight project, Future Identities: Changing identities in the UK – the next 10 years. The views expressed do not represent policy of any government or organisation DR19 Identity Related Crime in the UK Contents Identity Related Crime in the UK ............................................................................................................ 3 1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 4 2. Identity Theft (theft of personal information) .................................................................................... 6 3. Creating a false identity ...................................................................................................................... 9 4. Committing Identity Fraud ................................................................................................................ 12 5. New forms of identity crime ............................................................................................................. 14 6. The law and identity crime................................................................................................................ 16 7. Conclusions ......................................................................................................................................
  • British National Party: the Roots of Its Appeal Contents Contents About the Authors 4 TABLES and FIGURES

    British National Party: the Roots of Its Appeal Contents Contents About the Authors 4 TABLES and FIGURES

    The BNP: the roots of its appeal Peter John, Helen Margetts, David Rowland and Stuart Weir Democratic Audit, Human Rights Centre, University of Essex Published by Democratic Audit, Human Rights Centre, University of Essex, Colchester, Essex CO4 3SQ, and based on research carried out at the School of Public Policy, University College London, The Rubin Building, 29-30 Tavistock Square, London WC1H 9QU.The research was sponsored by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust, The Garden House, Water End, York YO30 6WQ. Copies of the report may be obtained for £10 from the Trust office. Democratic Audit is a research organisation attached to the Human Rights Centre at the University of Essex. The Audit specialises in auditing democracy and human rights in the UK and abroad and has developed a robust and flexible framework for democracy assessment in cooperation with the inter-governmental International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA), Stockholm. The Audit carries out periodic research projects as part of its longitudinal studies of British democracy. The latest audit of the UK, Democracy under Blair, is published by Politico’s. University College London’s Department of Political Science and School of Public Policy is focused on graduate teaching and research, and offers an environment for the study of all fields of politics, including international relations, political theory and public policy- making and administration 2 The British National Party: the roots of its appeal Contents Contents About the Authors 4 TABLES AND FIGURES
  • Combatting Online Harassment and Abuse: a Legal Guide for Journalists in England and Wales

    Combatting Online Harassment and Abuse: a Legal Guide for Journalists in England and Wales

    MLA Safety Guide COMBATTING ONLINE HARASSMENT AND ABUSE: A LEGAL GUIDE FOR JOURNALISTS IN ENGLAND AND WALES June 2021 DISCLAIMER: This guide is for educational purposes only. Every situation is different. A person experiencing an online safety threat should listen to their instincts, discuss their concerns with trusted allies and experts in law enforcement or security. This guide is and should not be relied upon as legal advice. Specialist legal advice should be sought based upon the particular circumstances in which it is needed. 1 MLA Safety Guide Acknowledgements This guide has been written by Beth Grossman, a barrister at Doughty Street Chambers specialising in media law. Strategic input has been provided by Caoilfhionn Gallagher QC, a leading expert in international human rights law and the safety of journalists. This guide draws upon her experience of having advised and assisted journalists dealing with online harassment and fearing for their safety. The guide was commissioned by the Media Lawyers’ Association (MLA) and the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS). The DCMS commissioned this report as part of its commitment to the National Action Plan for Journalists’ Safety. However, the guide is entirely independent of the DCMS. The MLA is an association of in-house media lawyers from newspapers, magazines, book publishers, broadcasters and news agencies. It was formed to promote and protect freedom of expression, and the right to receive and impart information, opinions and ideas. Its members include in-house lawyers from all of the major UK publishers and broadcasters as well as international news organisations. Our thanks go to Cian Murphy,Sophie Argent, Zoe Norden and John Battle for their assistance with the preparation of this guide.
  • Socialist Lawyer 45

    Socialist Lawyer 45

    LawyerI G SocialistMagazine of the Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers Number 45 December 2006 £2.50 Prison crisis Michael Mansfield, Piers Mostyn & Laura Janes on ‘Gulag Britain’ TONY BENN THE YASMIN SADAT SAYEED BILL BOWRING LAW, SOCIETY KHAN JEAN GUANTANAMO: DO ‘TERROR’ AND A NEW CHARLES DE WORK BEHIND SUSPECTS’ WORLD ORDER MENEZES THE SCENES HAVE RIGHTS? HaldaneSocietyof SocialistLawyers PO Box 57055, London EC1P 1AF Contents Website: www.haldane.org Number 45 December2006 ISBN 09 54 3635 The Haldane Society was founded in 1930. It provides a forum for the discussion and News & comment ................................................................................ 4 analysis of law and the legal system, both From the Philippines to Turkey, Shrewsbury to Lebanon, AGM to Jack Straw nationally and internationally, from a socialist perspective. It holds frequent public Keeping it in the family ...................................................... 11 meetings and conducts educational Young Legal Aid Lawyers’ regular column from Laura Janes programmes. The Haldane Society is independent of any Reiding between the lines .......................................... 12 political party. Membership comprises Michael Mansfield QC on the prisons crisis lawyers, academics, students and legal workers as well as trade union and labour Are we heading for ‘Gulag Britain’?...... 14 movement affiliates. Piers Mostyn catalogues the parlous state of our penal policy President: Michael Mansfield QC Vice Presidents: Kader Asmal; Children in need ...................................................................................
  • Issues Paper on Cyber-Crime Affecting Personal Safety, Privacy and Reputation Including Cyber-Bullying (LRC IP 6-2014)

    Issues Paper on Cyber-Crime Affecting Personal Safety, Privacy and Reputation Including Cyber-Bullying (LRC IP 6-2014)

    Issues Paper on Cyber-crime affecting personal safety, privacy and reputation including cyber-bullying (LRC IP 6-2014) BACKGROUND TO THIS ISSUES PAPER AND THE QUESTIONS RAISED This Issues Paper forms part of the Commission’s Fourth Programme of Law Reform,1 which includes a project to review the law on cyber-crime affecting personal safety, privacy and reputation including cyber-bullying. The criminal law is important in this area, particularly as a deterrent, but civil remedies, including “take-down” orders, are also significant because victims of cyber-harassment need fast remedies once material has been posted online.2 The Commission seeks the views of interested parties on the following 5 issues. 1. Whether the harassment offence in section 10 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997 should be amended to incorporate a specific reference to cyber-harassment, including indirect cyber-harassment (the questions for which are on page 13); 2. Whether there should be an offence that involves a single serious interference, through cyber technology, with another person’s privacy (the questions for which are on page 23); 3. Whether current law on hate crime adequately addresses activity that uses cyber technology and social media (the questions for which are on page 26); 4. Whether current penalties for offences which can apply to cyber-harassment and related behaviour are adequate (the questions for which are on page 28); 5. The adequacy of civil law remedies to protect against cyber-harassment and to safeguard the right to privacy (the questions for which are on page 35); Cyber-harassment and other harmful cyber communications The emergence of cyber technology has transformed how we communicate with others.
  • Hate Crime: the Case for Extending the Existing Offences

    Hate Crime: the Case for Extending the Existing Offences

    Hate Crime: the Case for Extending the Existing Offences Law Commission Consultation Paper No 213 Presentation will cover: • ambit of consultation - terms of reference • background - current hate crime regime, E&W law • provisional proposals, reform options, key questions Hate crime offences 2 sets of “hate crime” offences • Aggravated offences: higher maximum sentences where crime involved hostility based on race or religion - Crime and Disorder Act 1998 • Offences of stirring up hatred on grounds of race, religion and sexual orientation - Public Order Act 1986 What is “hate crime”? For police and CPS “hate crime” is any offence perceived by V or another person as motivated by hostility or prejudice based on: • Race • Religion • Sexual orientation • Disability • Transgender identity • (goths, street workers, other regional variations) • Aggravated offences don’t go this wide Statistics – Home Office In 2011/12 there were 43,748 crimes recorded by the police in England and Wales as “hate crimes” – 35,816 (82%) involved race – 1,621 (4%) involved religion – 1,744 (4%) involved disability – 4,252 (10%) involved sexual orientation – 315 (1%) involved transgender (Source: Home Office “Hate Crimes, England and Wales 2011/12”) Terms of reference MOJ asked the Law Commission to look into: “(a) extending the aggravated offences in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to include where hostility is demonstrated towards people on the grounds of disability, sexual orientation or [trans] gender identity; (b) the case for extending the stirring up of hatred
  • Why the BNP Is Still Fascist

    Why the BNP Is Still Fascist

    sistently to deny and downplay the Holocaust. the same rotten ideology. We must expose them They’re fools but (alas) not idiots – they know for who they are, and stand together to stop them. they’ll get nowhere if they admit their ideological Never forget, never again. link to the Nazi regime. But their Holocaust de- nial gives the game away. This article first appeared on the SUN website Behind the shiny suits lurks the same hatred, (www.socialistunitynetwork.co.uk) Why the BNP is Still Fascist Geoffrey Brown HE GAINS made by the BNP in local elections Enter Nick Griffin in recent years – it now has almost fifty coun- For all the carefully cultivated “reasonableness” cillors,T an achievement unprecedented in the hist- of his public persona today, Griffin has a similar ory of the far right in Britain – have been assisted far-right background to Tyndall. He was a nation- by a systematic revamping of the party’s image. al organiser for the NF in the 1970s, and in the The public expressions of Nazi sympathies and 1980s was heavily influenced by Roberto Fiore, a Holocaust denial for which the BNP had become leader of the Italian fascist organisation the Armed notorious have been junked and it now presents Revolutionary Nuclei (NAR), who fled to Britain itself as a respectable, mainstream political party. to avoid prosecution over the 1980 bombing of The question arises – does this amount to a funda- Bologna railway station in which 85 people died. mental change in the BNP’s political character, or Throughout the 1980s Griffin was a leading figure is it a cosmetic exercise designed to fool voters into in what remained of the NF, promoting a NAR- backing an organisation that has in reality failed inspired “Third Positionist” ideology that claimed to break with its fascist past? to offer an alternative to both capitalism and com- munism.
  • Scrap the Act: the Case for Repealing the Vagrancy Act (1824)

    Scrap the Act: the Case for Repealing the Vagrancy Act (1824)

    Scrap the Act: The case for repealing the Vagrancy Act (1824) This campaign is supported by: ii Scrap the Act: The case for repealing the Vagrancy Act (1824) iii Author Acknowledgements Nick Morris works in the Policy and External Affairs The views in this report are those of Crisis only but in the course of writing directorate at Crisis. it we benefited from valued contributions: • The Crisis project team: Matt Downie, Rosie Downes, Martine Martin, Simon Trevethick, Cuchulainn Sutton-Hamilton, and Nick Morris; and our colleague Lily Holman-Brant for helping produce this report. • George Olney from Crisis for providing the stories told to him by people on the street who were affected by the Act and directors from the Crisis Skylight services across England and Wales who shared their contacts and stories. • Campaign partners Homeless Link, St Mungo’s, Centrepoint, Cymorth Cymru, The Wallich, and Shelter Cymru for their help developing this report and the campaign to repeal the Act. • Lord Hogan-Howe for this report’s foreword and for chairing the multi- agency roundtable discussion in April 2019 in the UK Supreme Court (details in Appendix 1). Photo credit Chris McAndrew, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported licence. • Mike Schwarz, Bindmans LLP, for giving the legal advice in Appendix 2. • Professor Nick Crowson for sharing historical data about the Vagrancy Act’s use. • Cllr Ruth Bush and Matthias Kelly QC, for sharing their experiences of the End the Vagrancy Act campaign. • Prison Reform Trust for helping analyse the recent data. • Hannah Hart for providing advice and connections to policing and Crown Prosecution Service contacts who briefed us on police and criminal justice processes.
  • Offences Against Public Order

    Offences Against Public Order

    Ormerod & Laird: Smith, Hogan, and Ormerod's Criminal Law, 15th edition 31 Offences against public order 31.1 The Public Order Act 1986 31.1.1 Background The Public Order Act 1986 replaced the ancient common law offences of riot, rout, unlawful assembly and affray and some statutory offences relating to public order1 with new offences. These are, in descending order of gravity: s 1 riot; s 2 violent disorder; and, s 3 affray. In addition to these more serious offences, the Act created lower level offences: s 4 (threatening, abusive or insulting conduct intended, or likely, to provoke violence or cause fear of violence); s 5 (threatening or abusive conduct likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress); and s 4A (threatening, abusive or insulting conduct intentionally causing harassment, alarm 1 For the law before the 1986 Act, see the 5th edition of this book, Ch 20; for the background to the 1986 Act, see the Home Office, Review of the Public Order Act and Related Legislation (1980) Cmnd 7891 and Law Com Working Paper No 82 (1982) and LC 123, Offences Relating to Public Disorder (1983). For detailed studies of the new law at the time it was enacted, see R Card, Public Order: The New Law (1987) and ATH Smith, Offences against Public Order (1987). For a more recent detailed study of the offences, see P Thornton et al, The Law of Public Order and Protest (2010). © Oxford University Press, 2018. Ormerod & Laird: Smith, Hogan, and Ormerod's Criminal Law, 15th edition or distress) as added by subsequent legislation.2 These latter offences have become very heavily used.