Racially Aggravated Public Order Offence: Sufficiency of Partial Racial Hostility

Published date01 August 2008
DOI10.1350/jcla.2008.72.4.265
Date01 August 2008
Subject MatterDivisional Court
Divisional Court
Racially Aggravated Public Order Offence: Suff‌iciency of
Partial Racial Hostility
Keywords Racially aggravated; Public order; Partial racial hostility;
Causing harassment, alarm or distress
On 16 December 2005 two parking attendants (who were white) were
working in the Spital Hill area of Sheff‌ield when they were approached
by the appellant, who was a black male. The appellant started to argue
with the two attendants saying, ‘This is our patch not yours. Leave us
alone, you’re always picking on us up here. Leave the car alone’. Then
the appellant said, ‘Why don’t you get up . . . with your white uncles and
aunties’. The parking attendants, who stated that they felt threatened,
nervous and intimidated, called the police and the appellant was ar-
rested and subsequently charged with using threatening, abusive or
insulting words and behaviour within the sight or hearing of someone
likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress contrary to s. 5 of the
Public Order Act 1986. The appellant was convicted of the offence under
s. 5 of the 1986 Act and the magistrates found that his conduct was
racially aggravated contrary to s. 31(1)(c) of the Crime and Disorder Act
1998. Section 31(1)(c) of the 1998 Act creates a racially aggravated
public order offence which relies on the commission of the offence
contrary to s. 5 of the 1986 Act together with a racially aggravated
element.
The appellant unsuccessfully appealed to Sheff‌ield Crown Court
which found that the language used by the appellant had demonstrated
racial hostility. The appellant then appealed to the High Court by way of
case stated. The questions posed for the opinion of the High Court were,
inter alia, whether the words ‘why don’t you get up . . . with your white
uncles and aunties ‘ were capable of amounting to threatening, abusive
or insulting behaviour which would be capable of causing harassment,
alarm or distress. Furthermore, it was questioned whether these words
demonstrated hostility based upon the victims’ membership of a racial
group under s. 28 of the 1998 Act given that the description of ‘white’
comes within the def‌inition of a racial group under s. 28(4) of the 1998
Act. It was contended by the appellant that the mere reference to the
colour of the parking attendants accompanied by a request to leave
the black community alone was not suff‌icient to constitute an offence
under s. 31 of the 1998 Act.
H
ELD
,
DISMISSING THE APPEAL
, the words used by the appellant to the
parking attendants were plainly capable of amounting to threatening,
abusive or insulting words as per the requirements of s. 5 of the 1986
Act. The Crown Court, as the tribunal of fact, had found that, based on
the evidence, the parking attendants were indeed caused harassment,
265The Journal of Criminal Law (2008) 72 JCL 265–267
doi:1350/jcla.2008.72.4.504

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT