Conceptualizing ‘Hostility’ for Hate Crime Law: Minding ‘the Minutiae’ when Interpreting Section 28(1)(a) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.
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...
| Published in: | Oxford Journal of Legal Studies Vol. 34; no. 1; pp. 47 - 75 |
|---|---|
| Main Author: | |
| Format: | Article |
| Published: |
Oxford University Press / USA
Mar2014
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | View this record in EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=94799165&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: hlh uiTerm: 94799165 longDbName: Humanities International Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 01436503 BJ4 jtl: Oxford Journal of Legal Studies issn: 01436503 maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: Mar2014 vid: 34 iid: 1 pid: 622 pub: Oxford University Press / USA artinfo: ui: 94799165 10.1093/ojls/gqt021 ppf: 47 ppct: 28 formats: fmt: @attributes: type: P size: 179KB tig: atl: Conceptualizing ‘Hostility’ for Hate Crime Law: Minding ‘the Minutiae’ when Interpreting Section 28(1)(a) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. aug: au: Walters, Mark Austin su: Hate crimes Criminal law Race discrimination Statutory interpretation Prejudices Legal justification Multiculturalism United Kingdom sug: subj: United Kingdom Hate crimes Criminal law Race discrimination Statutory interpretation Prejudices Legal justification Multiculturalism keyword: criminal law culpability harm hate crime hostility racially and religiously aggravated offences ab: 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. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: English refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: Y custom: © 2019 Oxford University Press. item: Oxford Journal of Legal Studies holder: Oxford University Press / USA dt: @attributes: year: 2014 holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|