header-logo header-logo

20 September 2007
Issue: 7289 / Categories: Legal News , Human rights
printer mail-detail

Prosecutions unlikely under new hatred Act

News

Convictions under the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006—due to come into force in October—could be difficult because its free speech exemptions are so wide, lawyers say.

Using threatening words or behaviour to stir up religious hatred will become an imprisonable offence when the new law—which amends the Public Order Act 1986—comes in on 1 October 2007. It will extend protection to followers of all religions and offences can be written, spoken and broadcast or published words or actions. Religious hatred includes hatred against a group defined by their religious belief or lack of religious belief.

However, David Woods, a litigation specialist with Pinsent Masons, says the freedom of speech exemption is so wide that prosecutors may be deterred from bringing all but the clearest-cut cases of criminal behaviour: “Some accused will argue that their anti-religious behaviour was an expression of abuse or an effort to change someone’s beliefs, and that behaviour is lawful. The defence lawyer only needs to give grounds for a reasonable doubt to keep a client out of prison.”

“When the government proposed this law it said it was protecting the believer, not the belief. But that’s a distinction that defence teams will endeavour to exploit,” he adds.

Issue: 7289 / Categories: Legal News , Human rights
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll