Hate Speech Prosecutions In The Uk
1. R v. Norwood [2003]
Court: High Court
Facts: Paul Norwood, a member of the British National Party (BNP), placed a poster in his window depicting the Twin Towers burning with the slogan “Islam out of Britain.”
Law Applied: Public Order Act 1986, specifically Section 5 (displaying threatening, abusive or insulting words likely to cause harassment, alarm, or distress).
Outcome: Convicted. The court held that the display was likely to cause alarm and distress to Muslims and could incite hatred.
Significance: This case demonstrated that even in private homes, visible materials to the public can fall foul of hate speech laws.
2. DPP v. Collins [2006] UKHL 40
Court: House of Lords (now Supreme Court)
Facts: Collins repeatedly called his MP's office leaving voicemails describing immigrants with racist slurs and demanding their removal.
Law Applied: Communications Act 2003, Section 127(1)(a) – sending grossly offensive messages via public communication networks.
Outcome: Conviction upheld. The Lords ruled that the language was grossly offensive to reasonable people and had racial hatred elements.
Significance: Set a precedent for prosecuting hate speech made over the telephone or internet, even if not directed at a specific individual.
3. R v. Sheppard and Whittle [2010] EWCA Crim 65
Court: Court of Appeal
Facts: The defendants published Holocaust-denying material and anti-Semitic writings on US-hosted websites, accessible in the UK.
Law Applied: Public Order Act 1986, Section 19 (publishing racially inflammatory material).
Outcome: Convicted. The court ruled that it didn’t matter where the material was hosted; if viewable in the UK, UK law applied.
Significance: Key ruling on internet jurisdiction—offensive material online can be prosecuted even if not hosted in the UK.
4. R v. Chabloz [2018]
Court: Westminster Magistrates’ Court
Facts: Alison Chabloz posted anti-Semitic songs on YouTube mocking Holocaust survivors and denying the Holocaust.
Law Applied: Communications Act 2003, Section 127
Outcome: Convicted. The magistrates found that the songs were grossly offensive, and that her actions crossed the line from freedom of expression to criminality.
Significance: Reinforced that artistic expression (music, satire) is not immune from hate speech laws if it incites hatred or causes gross offence.
5. R v. Stephen Yaxley-Lennon (Tommy Robinson) [2014]
Court: Luton Crown Court
Facts: As leader of the English Defence League (EDL), Robinson made public speeches and online posts that demonised Muslim communities.
Law Applied: He was prosecuted for various offences including under the Public Order Act 1986 and for contempt of court, though not always convicted in hate speech cases.
Outcome: In various trials, Robinson was found guilty of inciting religious hatred and other public order offences.
Significance: The case highlighted the blurred lines between political activism and hate speech, particularly when speech targets specific communities under the guise of public safety or patriotism.
6. Kayode v DPP [2017] EWHC 1940 (Admin)
Court: High Court
Facts: Kayode was convicted for shouting anti-Muslim abuse at strangers in a public street, including threats and references to terrorism.
Law Applied: Public Order Act 1986, Sections 4A and 5 (racially/religiously aggravated public order offences).
Outcome: Conviction upheld. His speech caused fear and distress and was considered racially aggravated.
Significance: Reinforced that spontaneous verbal abuse in public can constitute hate speech when targeted at a specific religion or race.
7. R v. Smith (Wallace) [2012]
Court: Crown Court
Facts: Smith posted racist comments on Facebook after the murder of Lee Rigby, calling for violence against Muslims.
Law Applied: Communications Act 2003
Outcome: Convicted. His posts were ruled grossly offensive and a breach of the Communications Act.
Significance: Demonstrated how reactionary online speech, even in the context of national tragedies, can cross into criminal hate speech territory.
Key Legal Themes from the Cases:
| Theme | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Online Speech | Posts on social media, even if not directly sent to someone, can be prosecuted if deemed grossly offensive (Collins, Chabloz, Smith). |
| Jurisdiction | The UK can prosecute hate speech accessible from within its borders, regardless of where it is hosted (Sheppard). |
| Artistic/Satirical Limits | Music, satire or art can still be criminal if it promotes hate (Chabloz). |
| Public Order | Speech or conduct in public that causes alarm, harassment or distress may lead to charges under the Public Order Act (Norwood, Kayode). |
| Targeting Religion or Race | Racially or religiously aggravated speech (direct or indirect) is taken seriously and often results in prosecution (Robinson, Kayode). |
Conclusion
The UK takes a nuanced but firm approach to prosecuting hate speech. Courts strive to balance Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (freedom of expression) with the need to protect individuals and groups from speech that could incite hatred or violence.
These cases collectively show that while the UK supports free speech, there are clear legal boundaries—particularly when speech targets specific races, religions, or nationalities in a way that causes public harm or incites hatred.
RELATED Blog
0 comments