Hate Speech and Freedom of Expression

Question 1

Key case relating to hate speech vs freedom of exprression

Answer 1

MUNIM ABDUL (and others) v DPP 2011

Question 2

After a protests, defendants charged under which sections of the PUBLIC ORDER ACT 1986

Answer 2

Public Order Act 1986
s5(1) threatening,abusive, insulting or disorderly behaviour or displaying media of that nature
s5(3) defense if REASONABLE

s6(4) intends or ought to have know that the behaviour in question is threatening, abusive, insulting or disorderly

Question 3

In MUNIM ABDUL v DPP 2011 what was the right being relied upon by the defendents?

Answer 3

A10 ECHR

Question 4

Original judgement of MUNIM ABDUL v DPP 2011 regarding s4 POA 1986 and A10.2 ECHR?

Answer 4

‘Method they chose to convey an otherwise legitimate belief was so unreasonable and disproportionately expressed so as to deprive them from the protections of A10.2’

Question 5

What test is required under A10.2 in deciding whether to afford protection?

Answer 5

• Careful balancing act of individual rights vs collective interest
• Due to the large scale public outcry, public had a ‘right to expect a proper and measured approach’
• Incredibly large amount of evidence, consideration of evidence, time and high level attention went into the case = A10.2 satisfied

Question 6

R v ABU HAMZA 2006

Answer 6

• Principle of unequivocal representation
• If defendent was told something would not be illegally and they had reason to believe this was correct/above board = can’t be prosecuted

Question 7

Why did the defendents in MUNIM ABDUL v DPP 2011 think they could rely on the ABU HAMZA 2006 case?

Answer 7

• Complied with all police instructions and were not asked to stop at any time
• Police conduct in a high octane situation is not indicative of prosecution, public safety is their priority
• There was no explicit assertion by police, only their conduct on the day -> use of body cameras suggests intention to prosecute later?

Question 8

Issue that defence raised in regards to the efforts made to talk to the police?

Answer 8

• What was the point in a dialogue if they were just going to be prosecuted anyway
• Accepted that while not decisicive, the dialogue with and actions of the police was a ‘strong indication’ that it was disproportionate to prosecute

Question 9

What case did the defence in MUNIN ABDUL 2011 use to show why their prosecution whilst co operating with police was disproportionate?

Answer 9

HAMMOND v DPP 2004

Question 10

HAMMOND v DPP 2004

Answer 10

• D acted belligerently, had been given several police warnings and then requests to desist
• D had acted n a cloack and dagger fashion

Question 11

Difference between HAMMOND 2004 and MUNIN ABDUL 2011?

Answer 11

• In MUNIN ABDUL the defendents had been given no such warnings or opportunities and had been acting openly and honestly
• HAMMOND case was a less calculated protest

Question 12

A10 of ECHR provide for what?

Answer 12

Freedom of expression -> not absolute
10.2 makes clear that it is subject to strict conditions of rule of law and will not apply if there are valid concerns of public safety and security, prevention of disorder etc

Question 13

What is the crux of hate speech vs freedom of experession

Answer 13

Individual rights against good of society

- PROPORTIONALITY

Question 14

Case that highlights that actions must be proportional?

Answer 14

MUNIN ABDUL 2011

HANDYSIDE v UK 1980

Question 15

Even if an action alone would not necessarily negate the protections of A10, can it still be prosecuted?

Answer 15

YES

- A17 ECHR states any action that is against the core values of the convention will not be subject to A10 protection

Question 16

Case for s17 negating s10 protections?

Answer 16

NORWOOD v UK 2004

Question 17

NORWOOD v UK 2004?

Answer 17

• Display of window poster with twin towers on fire and ‘muslims out of britian’
• Against core values of tolerance by connecting an entire religion with a singlur terrorrist act = violation of A17
• No freedom of speech protection