Abstract

This article adds to the small but growing body of hate crime legal scholarship in the United Kingdom by examining the meaning of the term ‘hostility’ as prescribed under section 28 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. The article highlights the confusion which has occurred within the lower courts as to the distinction between section 28(1)(a), which proscribes ‘demonstrations’ of hostility, and section 28(1)(b), which proscribes offences ‘motivated’ by hostility. In addition to this confusion has been a clear reluctance to apply section 28(1)(a) by some judges in cases where the demonstration of hostility appears to be incidental, as against causal, to the offence committed. The article argues that in order to provide greater clarity in law, the words ‘demonstrates … hostility’ must be interpreted to include, not only acts that are motivated by, or which are intended to express prejudice or hatred, but any conduct carried out during an offence where the offender is aware his behaviour is likely to be perceived by right-minded individuals as indicating hostility towards the victim’s identity. The article concludes that such a broad approach to conceptualizing hostility is justified based on the need for the state to expressly denounce all public displays of identity-based prejudice. The approach also acknowledges the harmful effects that all expressions of hate (motivated by hostility or not) have on victims, minority communities and to the cohesiveness of Britain’s multicultural society