Racial Harassment and Domestic Violence: The Police and the Public: Implications of Farah V Commissioner of Police [1997] 1 ALL ER 289
| Author | Kate Paradine |
| DOI | 10.1177/135822919800300305 |
| Date | 01 December 1998 |
| Published date | 01 December 1998 |
| Subject Matter | Case Note |
International Journal
of
Discrimination
and
the
Law,
1998, Vol. 3,
pp.
209-215
1358-2291/98 $10
© 1998 A B Academic Publishers. Printed in Great Britain
CASE NOTE
RACIAL HARASSMENT
AND
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE:
THE
POLICE
AND
THE
PUBLIC: IMPLICATIONS
OF
FARAH
V
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [1997] 1 ALL
ER
289
In
the debate over the creation
of
specific offences to deal with racial
violence and harassment, the fundamental implications for police
officers dealing with racially motivated crimes
of
the
Court
of
Appeal ruling
in
Farah
v Commissioner
of
Police appear
to
have
gone unnoticed.
The Facts
In
1994 Zeinab Farah, a citizen
of
Somalia living in London, was attacked
by white teenagers. They set a
dog
on
her
and injured her.
The
police were
summoned
by
a
999
call but, rather than arresting
Ms
Farah's
attackers,
they arrested and detained her, charging
her
with affray,
common
assault
and causing unnecessary suffering to a dog.
When
she appeared to answer
charges,
no
evidence was offered and she was acquitted.
Ms
Farah
claimed, inter alia, that she had been the victim
of
racial discrimination
by the police.
The
Court
of
Appeal was asked to decide whether the
claim
should be struck out and for this purpose the facts
of
the case were
assumed to be undisputed.
The
Court sought to answer
two
questions.
The
first related to
whether the police were providing a service, so as to bring them
within the provisions
of
the Race Relations
Act
1976 (RRA).
The
second question, depending
on
an affirmative
answer
to the first, was
whether the Commissioner
of
the police could
be
vicariously liable
for the discriminatory acts
of
individual officers.
Were the Police Providing a Service?
Discrimination in the provision
of
goods, facilities
and
services is
outlawed by s.20 RRA.
The
section states that it is unlawful to
refuse
or
deliberately to omit to provide services
on
racial grounds,
or
not
to provide services
of
like quality to that which would
be
pro-
vided for other members
of
the public. Examples
of
such goods,
facilities and services are outlined in s.20(2).
The
most
applicable to
To continue reading
Request your trial