YOUR editorial of March 24 raises the important question of the effectiveness of the racially-aggravated offences legislation, but misses some important facts. There is a general law of racial aggravation, Section 96 of the Crime and Disorder Act, 1998, that can be applied to any criminal offence. For that law, proving the racist motive does not require corroborated evidence, and if it is not proved, the accused can still be convicted of the non-aggravated offence. The problems your editorial highlights do not arise.

The potential problem discussed in your editorial is with the separate specific offence of racially-aggravated harassment, Section 50a of the Criminal Law (Consolidation) Act. In that case, corroborated evidence is required, for both the racist motive and the harassment, and if the racist motive is not proved, the whole charge falls.

For religious hate crime, there is similar legislation to the Section 96 aggravation, but no equivalent of the Section 50a offence. Sectarian harassment for example would be charged as a religious prejudice-aggravated breach of the peace. Evidence from one source is enough to prove the sectarian motive, and if that is not proved, there can still be a conviction for the nonaggravated breach of the peace.

The working group on hate crime did not recommend a Section 50a type of offence for hate crime against disabled people and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, but instead recommended a statutory aggravation that could be applied to any offence, like the existing religious hate crime legislation. So the potential difficulties you discuss would not arise.

There is strong evidence that disabled and LGBT people are disproportionately victims of crime.

Scotland is the only part of the UK not yet to address this in legislation.

Tim Hopkins, Equality Network, 30 Bernard Street, Edinburgh.