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.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article