Racially and Religiously Aggravated Offences Flashcards
Mario spray paints the words ‘Pakis go home’ on a broken wall in some wasteland next to the railway. He is arrested and the solicitor argues that there is no offence, as the owner of the broken wall cannot be traced and as such the crime is victimless.
Considering offences being racially or religiously aggravated contrary to section 28(1) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, is it necessary to identify a victim?
When there is evidence of a racial or religious motivation for the offence, it is not necessary to identify a victim
Considering the offence of unlawful and malicious wounding contrary to Section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, if the matter is racially or religiously aggravated and charged under Section 29(1)(a) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, what does the maximum sentence increase to?
The maximum sentence increases from 5 years to 7 years.
Sam, 16 years old, decides one evening to take her spray paint and write on a local council bus shelter ‘Burn the Jews’. Sam is a racist and wants to offend as many of the local Jewish community as possible.
In relation to the damage element only, is Sam liable for a racially or religiously aggravated criminal damage under The Crime and Disorder Act 1998?
No, Sam is not liable in these circumstances.
Sam although obscene in his behaviour has not directed her hostility towards the victim, namely the owner of the bus shelter, i.e. the council. There is likely to be public order matters to face, but the question is asking you only about the damage element. The council is not capable of being a religious or racial group.
Peter has thrown paint stripper over his neighbour Winston’s (a Jamaican national) front door. This has caused extensive damage to the paintwork. Winston calls the police and twenty minutes later they arrive. They speak to Winston first who explains what has happened and says the reason for it is a neighbourhood dispute. The officers speak to Peter who uses a racial slur to describe Winston and admits to the offence.
Has Peter committed a racially aggravated offence?
No, the racial slur and therefore hostility needs to be demonstrated immediately before or immediately after and therefore is not made out here.
Gary and Trevor are walking home from the pub when they see Denzel across the road. Gary and Trevor believe that Denzel owes their friend money and therefore beat him up shouting at the end ‘You better pay your debts’. In fact Denzel doesn’t owe anyone any money and it is his twin brother who has the debt. Denzel believes he was assaulted because he is a Muslim.
Considering the offence of racially aggravated assault which of the following statements is true?
(a) Gary and Trevor have committed the offence of racially aggravated assault as it is the belief of the victim which is important.
(b) Gary and Trevor have committed assault but it is not racially motivated as no racial hostility was demonstrated towards the victim.
(c) Gary and Trevor have committed the offence of racially aggravated assault in these circumstances
(d) Gary and Trevor have not committed the offence as once the racial element is removed so is the primary offence.
(b) Gary and Trevor have committed assault but it is not racially motivated as no racial hostility was demonstrated towards the victim.
Steven is a football supporter, he sees a rival football supporter called Kevin. He doesn’t like Kevin for this reason (that he supports a rival team) so shouts to him ‘Oi Africa boy, go back to your country’. Kevin is actually West Indian and therefore laughs at Steven’s ignorance.
Considering Racial or Religious Hostility contrary to Section 28(1) and (2) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 which of the following is correct.
(a) The offence is not made out as racial or religious hostility must be the sole or primary motivator, in this case it is football rivalry.
(b) The offence is not made out as Steven does not even know what racial group Kevin identifies himself with.
(c) The offence is made out but only if Kevin believes the primary motivation was racial hostility as opposed to football.
(d) An offence is made out as there is presumed membership of a racial group.
(d) An offence is made out as there is presumed membership of a racial group.
Gerry is drunk and standing outside a nightclub. He was escorted out lawfully because of his behaviour inside the club, Gerry decides to remonstrate with the door staff. Gerry gets himself very excited and wound up, but the door staff remain professional throughout but Gerry is spoiling for a fight. While the door staff await the arrival of a public order van to deal with him, Gerry makes a decision to kick one of the door staff in the leg, causing reddening only. He immediately runs away shouting a racial slur at the door staff who he has just assaulted.
Considering The Crime and Disorder Act 1988, has a racially aggravated assault taken place in this scenario?
Yes, in this scenario in these circumstances a racially aggravated assault has taken place.
James is out in town celebrating his 17th birthday. He gets into a fight with a group of people in a pub. The police are called and upon reviewing CCTV and speaking to witnesses, it becomes apparent that James was racist in the fight, shouting racial slurs towards the group, some of whom were of BAME backgrounds. Seven people were arrested for an affray in the end and DS Gray a case director, is considering the racial element for charging purposes.
Considering The Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which of the following is correct in relation to the charging options?
The answer is C James cannot be charged with racially aggravated Affray. James cannot be charged with racially aggravated Affray. The only public order offences that can be charged with a racially or religiously aggravated element are section 4, 4a and 5.
Nathan has fallen out with Jamal, his neighbour. One night Nathan decides to burn Jamal’s shed to the ground because of his hatred of Jamal. The next day while Jamal is in his garden, Nathan tells Jamal he was responsible for the shed because he hates Jamal’s religious beliefs.
Considering The Crime and Disorder Act 1998, is Nathan liable for a religiously aggravated offence here?
Nathan is not liable for a religiously aggravated offence as it’s only ‘simple’ criminal damage covered under the Act.
Jim is unemployed and is walking down the street and sees a group of males who he assumes are of East European descent, standing on a street corner. Jim says as he walks passed, ‘bloody foreigners, stealing all our jobs’.
Considering The Crime and Disorder Act 1988 in relation to any public order offences here, is Jim liable?
It could amount to racially aggravating abusive or insulting words, but Jim should not be charged unless prosecutors are satisfied that the facts suggest that the offence was aggravated by racism.
PC Patel is on foot patrol when he comes across a male (Chad) urinating against a wall. He walks up to Chad to tell him to stop and move along. Chad replies “Piss off Copper, I needed a slash”. PC Patel moves closer to Chad who suddenly turns around and punches PC Patel in the shoulder, he follows the punch up with “You boys are all the same”. PC Patel takes this is a racial slur and arrests Chad for racially aggravated assault. Chad during interview denies his assault was racially motivated and the ‘boys’ he was referring to was the Police in general.
Considering the role of the ‘victim’, which of the following is correct?
(a) It is PC Patel’s perception of the incident, which is relevant to whether it is racially motivated.
(b) PC Patel cannot be a victim of racially motivated assault as he is a member of the police force.
(c) The assault is racially motivated unless Chad can prove he is not racist.
(d) It is unlikely that Chad will get charged for a racially aggravated assault but will get charged with assault police.
(d) It is unlikely that Chad will get charged for a racially aggravated assault but will get charged with assault police.
When it comes to the victim, their perception of the incident (whatever it is) is irrelevant.
The Crime and Disorder Act 1988 tells us which offences can become racially or religiously aggravated.
Which four categories correctly identifies the areas that can become racially or religiously aggravated?
Assaults, Harassment, Public Order and Criminal Damage.
Harassment under sections 1(1) and 2 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 has a maximum sentence of six months as a summary only offence at the Magistrates court. However if the matter is charged under section 32(1)(a) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, i.e. racially or religiously aggravated, the maximum sentence increases.
What is the increased maximum sentence for this offence when it is charged as a racially or religiously aggravated offence?
2 years triable either way.
Racial or religious groups are defined under Section 28 (4) and (5) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.
Which of the following is considered not to be a racial group?
(a) Race or Colour.
(b) Nationality (including citizenship) or Race.
(c) Ethnic or national origins.
(d) Christians.
(c) Ethnic or national origins.
Mindy is walking down the road when she sees a girl from school called Narinder. As Narinder walks past her, she pushes her hard into some bushes, Narinder picks herself up and Mindy says to her ‘Don’t like Muslims’.
Considering the offence of racially or aggravated assault, has an offence been made out?
This is a racially aggravated assault as the racial hostility was demonstrated immediately after.
