Asked by Lord Vinson To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further
to the Written Answer by Baroness Vere of Norbiton on 20 November
(HL2876), what assessment they have made of the impact on freedom
of speech of the definition of hate crime recently adopted by the
Crown Prosecution Service to facilitate the reporting of incidents
which is wider than the legal definition of such crime under
the...Request free trial
Asked by
-
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written
Answer by on 20
November (HL2876), what assessment they have made of the
impact on freedom of speech of the definition of hate crime
recently adopted by the Crown Prosecution Service to
facilitate the reporting of incidents which is wider than
the legal definition of such crime under the Crime and
Disorder Act 1998 and the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
-
(Con)
My Lords, the CPS seeks to balance the right to freedom of
speech and expression with the duty of the state to act
proportionately against those who wish to deepen and extend
divisions in the social fabric of our nation. The public
statements and the guidance are clear. The CPS recognises
the potential impact of overzealous prosecutions on rights
under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human
Rights. Currently, we feel that the balance is correct.
-
(Con)
I thank the Minister for her understandably somewhat
evasive reply; I hope she is really concerned at the
continuous attrition of freedom of speech. She will be
aware that the Crown Prosecution Service, by widening
unilaterally the definition of racially aggravated crime,
has made a bad situation worse. People are afraid to speak
their mind, and even a remark can be a criminal offence.
Does she agree that freedom of expression must come before
bruised feelings? Will she please instruct the CPS to
re-examine its instructions and thus protect our ancient
liberties?
-
I thank my noble friend for his series of questions. The
CPS legal guidance and public statements on all strands of
hate crimes were revised and published in August 2017.
However, the flagging definition of hate crime was not
changed—indeed, it has been the same since 2007. Both the
police and the CPS use this definition to flag potential
hate crime. He also mentioned the attrition of freedom of
speech. I am afraid once again to disappoint my noble
friend, but I am not sure I can agree with him. I am an
avid user of Twitter and think we could all agree that
there is freedom of speech on a daily basis, and perhaps
increased vociferousness, which I think is a good thing.
-
(Lab)
My Lords, will the Government and the prosecuting
authorities always remember that freedom of speech is one
of our hard-fought-for liberties? Regrettably—and for very
good reasons—inroads have had to be made, but there can be
unintended consequences if one does not tread extremely
carefully. When I was Attorney-General it was my statutory
personal responsibility to authorise some prosecutions. One
was of an old lady in her 80s who repeatedly published vile
anti-Semitic literature and was repeatedly jailed for
disobeying the court, and got immense publicity from so
doing. When I eventually decided not to prosecute, no more
was heard of her.
-
I think almost all noble Lords would agree that freedom of
speech is a fundamental right. I think the noble and
learned Lord was referring there to the offence of stirring
up hatred from his time as Attorney-General, and indeed it
does need the Attorney-General’s permission to prosecute
those offences. In the last year there have just been four
such prosecutions, all of which were successful.
-
(LD)
The Question from the noble Lord, , makes the
distinction between the perception of the victim and the
hostile motivation of the accused, which has to be proved
in court. I suggest that that is a very arid distinction in
the context of decisions to investigate and prosecute. Does
the Minister agree that the CPS can realistically base its
definition of hate crime only on the perception of victims?
Will she reaffirm the emphasis in her earlier Written
Answer on the importance of the CPS retaining the
confidence of the minority communities that are targeted by
hate crime?
-
I think all noble Lords know the background to where we are
today. Twenty years ago this country had a very poor record
of dealing with hate crime, and confidence in the criminal
justice system among BAME communities was extremely low. We
have come a long way. It is important to remember that the
definition is used for flagging crimes; when it comes to
charging those crimes, they still have to be done within
the same legal framework as always.
-
(Con)
I do not think my noble friend has any authority to
instruct the Director of Public Prosecutions in any way.
However, she could write to ask the DPP whether she agrees
with the statement in the Question that the definition is
broader than what is in the statute and, only if so, to
explain the authority on which that has been issued.
-
My Lords, I will happily write to the director to ask those
questions. I believe the response will be that it is
broader but it is not used for charging; it is used purely
for flagging those cases that may be a hate crime. That
definition is a very important one.
-
(UKIP)
My Lords, will the Government confirm that the latest
definition from the CPS of a hate crime is one which is
perceived by the victim or any other person to be motivated
by prejudice based on a person’s religion? Will the
Government therefore confirm unequivocally that a Christian
who says that Jesus is the only Son of the one true God
cannot be arrested for hate crime or any other offence,
however much it may offend a Muslim or anyone of any other
religion?
-
My Lords, I am not going to comment on that last question
from the noble Lord. However, I will say that when the public
statements were revised, the definition did not change; it
has been the same for the last 10 years. The noble Lord will
also be interested to know that that was as a result of a
public consultation that went on for 13 weeks. There were 126
responses, and overall they were positive and welcomed the
revised public statements.
|
