Have you been let down by the police in the UK?
The Crown Prosecution Service is the principal public agency for conducting criminal prosecutions in England and Wales.
Any crime can be prosecuted as a hate crime if the offender has either:
demonstrated hostility based on race, religion, disability, sexual orientation or transgender identity
Or
been motivated by hostility based on race, religion, disability, sexual orientation or transgender identity
Someone can be a victim of more than one type of hate crime.
These crimes are covered by legislation (Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and section 66 of the Sentencing Act 2020) which allows prosecutors to apply for an uplift in sentence for those convicted of a hate crime.
The police and the CPS have agreed the following definition for identifying and flagging hate crimes:
"Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person's disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation or transgender identity or perceived transgender identity."
There is no legal definition of hostility so we use the everyday understanding of the word which includes ill-will, spite, contempt, prejudice, unfriendliness, antagonism, resentment and dislike.
In hate crime cases this includes gathering evidence that the victim has been targeted because of their race, religion, disability, sexual orientation and/or transgender identity or because of what the offender believes to be their race, religion, disability, sexual orientation and/or transgender identity.
The CPS is responsible for deciding which cases go to court. This includes taking a decision on whether there is enough evidence to prosecute a crime as a hate crime.
If an offender pleads not guilty the CPS are responsible for preparing and presenting the case against them at court.
In hate crime cases the CPS is also responsible for asking the courts to increase the sentence that an offender receives – to reflect the fact that the crime they committed was a hate crime.
For a conviction to receive enhanced sentencing in court the police need to provide sufficient evidence to prove the hostility element, however this is not required for flagging purposes. Therefore, whilst not all flagged cases will result in an application for an uplift of sentence under s.66 of the Sentencing Act 2020 [‘s.66 SA 2020’] (which applies to all convictions on or after 1st December 2020), they should still be flagged on CMS.
CASE BUILDING (based on disabilities, racial and religious hatred)
Prosecutors must adopt a proactive approach to seeking further information from the police to help them to decide if a case can be prosecuted as a disability hate crime and that there is sufficient evidence that to be presented to the court at sentence. This might include seeking information from other agencies, such as social services, the NHS and specialist support or community groups working with disabled people.
Perpetrators are often partners, family members, friends, carers, acquaintances, or neighbours. Offending by persons with whom the disabled person is in a relationship may be complicated by emotional, physical and financial dependency and the need to believe a relationship is trusting and genuine, however dysfunctional. Where perpetrators are partners, or live with the disabled person and are either members of the same family or have previously been partners, the offence of Controlling or coercive behaviour may apply: see legal guidance on Controlling or Coercive behaviour in an Intimate or Family Relationship.
There are a number of common triggers for crimes against disabled persons, for example: access or equipment requirements, such as ramps to trains and buses, can cause irritability or anger in perpetrators; perceived benefit fraud ; jealousy in regard to perceived "perks", such as disabled parking spaces.
Multiple perpetrators are involved in incidents condoning and encouraging the main offender(s) - for example, filming on their mobile phones and sending pictures to friends or social networking sites.
False accusations of the victim being a paedophile or "grass".
Cruelty, humiliation and degrading treatment, often related to the nature of the disability: for example, blindfolding someone who is deaf; destroying mobility aids.
Barriers to, and negative experience of, reporting to criminal justice agencies, which leads disabled people to feel that they are not being taken seriously.
Disabled people have a tendency to report incidents to a third party rather than to the police.
Was cruelty, humiliation or degradation involved?
Perpetrators
Was hostility based on the victim's disability demonstrated by the perpetrator?
Did the offender target or cause harm to a victim who was in the circumstances vulnerable because of their disability? Although such evidence will not necessarily support a s.66 SA 2020 uplift, it will be relevant to sentence as an aggravating factor.
Have there been any previous incidents involving the offender and hostility or targeted anti-social behaviour?
If so, what was the nature and location of previous incidents?
Have the incidents escalated in severity and frequency?
Has opportunistic offending become systematic and regular targeting?
What is the status of the offender - "friend", paid or informal / family carer, acquaintance, relative, stranger?
What was the role of any bystanders?
Were there multiple perpetrators condoning and encouraging, taking photos/videos?
What evidence is there to suggest this is not a disability hate crime?
Actions relating to disability and mobility aids. For example:
Carers or perpetrators of domestic violence may exploit someone's impairment by moving aids out of reach, or by withholding food, water, communication, money or medication.
Throwing or kicking away a walking stick or walking frame, or using these objects as weapons against the disabled person.
Actions relating to accessibility aids. For example:
Removal of an access ramp, preventing the disabled person from gaining access to transport or a building.
Use of an access ramp as a weapon, such as throwing the ramp at the disabled person.
Challenging the right of a disabled person to use accessible facilities, such as reserved parking, or reserved seating or spaces on public transport; or showing impatience or annoyance towards disabled people using such facilities.
Targeting only disabled persons' homes for crimes (e.g. criminal damage; burglary), which are sometimes identified by mobility aids, such as adapted parking spaces, ramps and other adaptations outside the properties.
Staring or laughing at or mimicking the disabled person.
Filming the offending, such as a physical or sexual assault.
Filming and uploading images of disabled persons, possibly with abusive comments, onto social networking sites.
What we mean by "Vulnerable" victims and witnesses
The social model of disability recognizes that many people with disabilities do not consider themselves to be "vulnerable" and may be offended by the use of that word to describe their position.
This guidance does not suggest that a disabled person is vulnerable per se. Where the guidance refers to a "vulnerable" victim, witness or person, it does so in the context of the person being vulnerable to a particular criminal offence in particular circumstances, or in the context of a relevant Sentencing Guideline or an application for special measures for a "vulnerable witness" under s16 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999.
Prosecutors may use the term "vulnerable" in these contexts in court.
Other vocabulary may be considered inappropriate by disabled people and prosecutors should avoid using potentially offensive language. For example, prosecutors should avoid saying:
"bullying" - this term is more commonly used in relation to the behaviour and experience of children and young people. The use of this word can understate the seriousness of incidents that involve intimidation, persecution, terror, fear and harassment i.e. behaviors amounting to criminal offences. Even "mere" queue barging, ridicule, mimicking and exclusion can cause harassment, alarm or distress, particularly if repeated.
"has a mental age of" - comparison of an adult person with a child is often considered to be demeaning and unhelpful. Better practice is a reference to the person's level of social functioning and understanding.
"mate crime" - this refers to people with learning disabilities or mental health issues being "befriended" by people who then exploit them. The term 'mate crime' is used by some disability organisations within the disabled community to raise awareness of the issue. It is not CPS policy to use this term, as it is potentially confusing to people with learning disabilities.
No comments