I am having some real difficulty understanding why there has been a generalised assumption that Lucy Connolly was guilty of an offence in relation to the following tweet:
“Mass deportation now. Set fire to all the fucking hotels full of the bastards for all I care. While you’re at it, take the treacherous government and politicians with them. I feel physically sick knowing what these families will now have to endure. If that makes me racist, so be it.”
The charge against her was under the Public Order Act 1986 section 19 (Publishing or distributing written material):
- A person who publishes or distributes written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting is guilty of an offence if—
(a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.
It is always worth looking at the definitions and sure enough there is a definition in the Act:
17 Meaning of ” racial hatred “.
In this Part ” racial hatred ” means hatred against a group of persons in Great Britain defined by reference to colour, race, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins.
So let us look at the tweet. Who are “the bastards”? Clearly, it is the people in “the fucking hotels” (but presumably not the staff). And equally, those hotels were the hotels housing those who had crossed the Channel in small boats (let us call them “illegal immigrants” for the moment). That is a group, for sure. Is it a group defined by colour? Clearly not; the illegal immigrants were not of a uniform colour. Race? Clearly not; the illegal immigrants were not of a uniform race. Nationality? Clearly not; the illegal immigrants were of several nationalities. Ethnic or national origins? Clearly not; again, the illegal immigrants were not from a single ethnic or national origin. Instead, the group tweet was concerned with was defined by reference to the fact that they were people that had crossed the channel in small boats, and who were now being housed at public expense in hotels. That is the group that Lucy Connolly was primarily objecting to.
That is not the only group that the tweet was addressing. It was also addressing “the treacherous government and politicians”. It might well be thought that this included not only politicians, but also others in government, in particular civil servants. Again, that is not a group of persons listed in section 17.
Now, you might think that stirring up a bit of hatred, intentionally or otherwise, against politicians, bike thieves, estate agents, human rights lawyers, parking wardens or people who cross the channel in small inflatable boats is all thoroughly objectionable. But regardless of your views about that, such hatred is not “racial hatred” within the meaning of section 17. And if it is not “racial hatred” within the meaning of section 17, there can be no offence under section 19.
Lucy Connolly now says that she did not mean to stir up any racial hatred at all. And so there is no offence under section 19(1)(a), notwithstanding the concessions made by her lawyers. What about sections 19(1)(b)? Well, there is a problem for the prosecution here. This is what the Court of Appeal had to say about it:
5 Just over three and a half hours later, the applicant removed that message. By then, however, it had been viewed many times and reposted for others to read. In all, the message was viewed 310,000 times and reposted 940 times
There was no evidence that Lucy Connolly’s post had stirred up any racial hatred within that 3 ½ hours. Rather, it had stirred up some agreement among all the people who would reposted it. Stirring up agreement is not the same thing as stirring up racial hatred. Insofar as racial hatred was stirred up (as far as I am aware, there is no evidence at all that it was in fact stirred up at all), or was likely to be stirred up, it was stirred up by all those people who retweeted it. Obviously, the police would not like to go to all the trouble of prosecuting them. 940 of them. Much easier to find a single scapegoat.
And then there are those words, “for all I care”. Those words mean, of course, exactly the opposite of incitement. Let us take a couple of practical examples:
The wife of habitual drunken husband says, “Go to the pub and get sozzled again, for all I can”. Is that wife encouraging her husband go to the pub and get sozzled again? Clearly not.
Not so hypothetical, look at this from The Guardian:
Jon Savage very generously gave me access to his recordings of Sid’s mum – a heroin addict – going, “I fucking told him, ‘I don’t care where you go. Sling yer hook. Fuck off. Sleep on a park bench for all I care.” This when Sid was 15 years of age. So a very damaged boy.
Was that mother encouraging her son to sleep on a park bench? No.
The highest that the charge could properly be brought against Lucy Connolly was that she was saying that she not prepared to take any active steps to intervene in any riotous attempt to ignite the hotels. Well, it is not an offence to decline to get involved in a riot. Or to say as much.
And so we come to the question of her pleading guilty, notwithstanding that she was not. That was on legal advice that was, admittedly with the benefit of hindsight, less than ideal. But it was worse than that. Not only did her lawyer, Liam Muir of Carter Osborne, adviser to plead guilty, but also apparently conceded that the offence was of the most serious kind. The Court of Appeal said:
28. Mr Muir did not dispute that the offence fell into category A1 of the guideline.
I advance no criticism of Mr Muir here; that is a debate for an entirely different forum. As a lawyer myself, I know that all sorts of factors, not available for public scrutiny, might affect what advice a lawyer gives to his client. All that is pertinent to remark here is that if the courts had properly applied the law, they would have found:
- that Lucy Connolly had committed no offence;
- and even if there had been a technical infringement of the law, it was at a very low category.
There is every reason to believe that the refusal of bail for Lucy Connolly, her conviction, and the severity of her sentence were all politically motivated. The reality is that Lucy Connolly is middle England. As a childminder, she regularly cares for children of all ethnic backgrounds. Understandably, she wrote this tweet in a state of anger at the murders of children.
If you have not done so, I urge readers to listen to the interview by Allison Pearson. Just over an hour long, but worth the time.
She might bring down the government of Keir Starmer. For all I care.
phenell 