religiously aggravated assault
Discussion
The guy that attacked Galloway has been charged with religiously aggravated assault..
This seems a little odd to me. Firstly Galloways claims to be a socialist, therefore implicity an atheist (Opiate of the People etc). Secondly it is Galloways own anti-isreali provocation that appear religiously motivated.
So what is going on with this this charge, why not just common assault?
This does seem to imply that if somebody is subject to religiously aggravated provocation it automatically makes any response religiously aggravated.
Is this the intention? It seems like a stretch to me.
The CPS said:
To prove that an offence is racially or religiously aggravated, the prosecution has to prove the "basic" offence followed by racial or religious aggravation, as defined in section 28 Crime and Disorder Act 1998. An offence will be racially or religiously aggravated if:
a) at the time of the offence (or shortly before or after), the offender demonstrates to the victim hostility based on the victim's membership (or presumed membership) of a racial or religious group, or
b) the offence is motivated wholly or partly by hostility towards members of a racial or religious group based on their membership (or presumed membership) of that group.
-- demonstrating hostility is not defined by the Act. The ordinary dictionary definition of hostile includes simply being "unfriendly". Proving this limb of the offence requires evidence of words or actions which show hostility toward the victim. However, this hostility may be totally unconnected with the "basic" offence which may have been committed for other, non-racially or religiously motivated reasons. For example, an assault which takes place because of an argument over a parking place, but where the offender then utters racial abuse to the victim of the assault would come within the scope of this part of section 28.
-- motivated by hostility may prove more difficult in practice. In the absence of a clear statement by the accused that his/her actions were motivated by his hostility to his victim based on his race or religious belief, for example, an admission under caution, how can motive be shown? In some cases, background evidence could well be important if relevant to establish motive, for example, evidence of membership of, or association with, a racist group, or evidence of expressed racist views in the past might, depending on the facts, be admissible in evidence.
a) at the time of the offence (or shortly before or after), the offender demonstrates to the victim hostility based on the victim's membership (or presumed membership) of a racial or religious group, or
b) the offence is motivated wholly or partly by hostility towards members of a racial or religious group based on their membership (or presumed membership) of that group.
-- demonstrating hostility is not defined by the Act. The ordinary dictionary definition of hostile includes simply being "unfriendly". Proving this limb of the offence requires evidence of words or actions which show hostility toward the victim. However, this hostility may be totally unconnected with the "basic" offence which may have been committed for other, non-racially or religiously motivated reasons. For example, an assault which takes place because of an argument over a parking place, but where the offender then utters racial abuse to the victim of the assault would come within the scope of this part of section 28.
-- motivated by hostility may prove more difficult in practice. In the absence of a clear statement by the accused that his/her actions were motivated by his hostility to his victim based on his race or religious belief, for example, an admission under caution, how can motive be shown? In some cases, background evidence could well be important if relevant to establish motive, for example, evidence of membership of, or association with, a racist group, or evidence of expressed racist views in the past might, depending on the facts, be admissible in evidence.
La Liga said:
The CPS said:
To prove that an offence is racially or religiously aggravated, the prosecution has to prove the "basic" offence followed by racial or religious aggravation, as defined in section 28 Crime and Disorder Act 1998. An offence will be racially or religiously aggravated if:
a) at the time of the offence (or shortly before or after), the offender demonstrates to the victim hostility based on the victim's membership (or presumed membership) of a racial or religious group, or
b) the offence is motivated wholly or partly by hostility towards members of a racial or religious group based on their membership (or presumed membership) of that group.
-- demonstrating hostility is not defined by the Act. The ordinary dictionary definition of hostile includes simply being "unfriendly". Proving this limb of the offence requires evidence of words or actions which show hostility toward the victim. However, this hostility may be totally unconnected with the "basic" offence which may have been committed for other, non-racially or religiously motivated reasons. For example, an assault which takes place because of an argument over a parking place, but where the offender then utters racial abuse to the victim of the assault would come within the scope of this part of section 28.
-- motivated by hostility may prove more difficult in practice. In the absence of a clear statement by the accused that his/her actions were motivated by his hostility to his victim based on his race or religious belief, for example, an admission under caution, how can motive be shown? In some cases, background evidence could well be important if relevant to establish motive, for example, evidence of membership of, or association with, a racist group, or evidence of expressed racist views in the past might, depending on the facts, be admissible in evidence.
a) at the time of the offence (or shortly before or after), the offender demonstrates to the victim hostility based on the victim's membership (or presumed membership) of a racial or religious group, or
b) the offence is motivated wholly or partly by hostility towards members of a racial or religious group based on their membership (or presumed membership) of that group.
-- demonstrating hostility is not defined by the Act. The ordinary dictionary definition of hostile includes simply being "unfriendly". Proving this limb of the offence requires evidence of words or actions which show hostility toward the victim. However, this hostility may be totally unconnected with the "basic" offence which may have been committed for other, non-racially or religiously motivated reasons. For example, an assault which takes place because of an argument over a parking place, but where the offender then utters racial abuse to the victim of the assault would come within the scope of this part of section 28.
-- motivated by hostility may prove more difficult in practice. In the absence of a clear statement by the accused that his/her actions were motivated by his hostility to his victim based on his race or religious belief, for example, an admission under caution, how can motive be shown? In some cases, background evidence could well be important if relevant to establish motive, for example, evidence of membership of, or association with, a racist group, or evidence of expressed racist views in the past might, depending on the facts, be admissible in evidence.
So if the accused expressed, for example, a hatred of Muslims, even though Galloway is not one, but supports them, then it is still religiously motivated?
Edited by Martin4x4 on Sunday 31st August 12:25
Two things to establish - was he subject of assault - clearly yes
Is there any info to indicate that the assault was religiously/racially motivated - in this case also yes as the attacker was apparently shouting about the holocaust at the time of the attack
Hence its recorded as an aggravated assault - GBH in this case due to broken rib and jaw.
Is there any info to indicate that the assault was religiously/racially motivated - in this case also yes as the attacker was apparently shouting about the holocaust at the time of the attack
Hence its recorded as an aggravated assault - GBH in this case due to broken rib and jaw.
I think it was a "suspected" broken jaw
"The Metropolitan Police said Neil Masterson, 39, of Camden Hill, has been charged with assault by beating which is religiously aggravated on a male in his 60s.
He was also charged with common assault on a male in his 40s, who is understood to have come to Mr Galloway’s aid."
"The Metropolitan Police said Neil Masterson, 39, of Camden Hill, has been charged with assault by beating which is religiously aggravated on a male in his 60s.
He was also charged with common assault on a male in his 40s, who is understood to have come to Mr Galloway’s aid."
Bigends said:
Is there any info to indicate that the assault was religiously/racially motivated - in this case also yes as the attacker was apparently shouting about the holocaust at the time of the attack
I don't see how shouting about the holocaust alone supports that claim of religiously/racially motivation. They are orthagonal issues.I accept religiously/racially motivation for the holocaust, but cannot see how opposing the holocaust can be religiously/racially motivationed. That is just a civilised reaction. Adding violence doesn't change the grounds of the motivation.
ging84 said:
singlecoil said:
Let's hope he gets a severe sentence.
For failing to rid us of such a horrible man?Martin4x4 said:
Ok, I think I get it.
So if the accused expressed, say for example, hatred of Muslims even though Gallow is not one, but supports them, then it is still religiously motivated?
I think so, but not 100%. The definition states "any other person". So if the accused expressed, say for example, hatred of Muslims even though Gallow is not one, but supports them, then it is still religiously motivated?
Crime and disorder act said:
“Any criminal offence which is perceived to be motivated by hostility towards a person’s race or religion or perceived race or religion, by the victim or any other person.”
This stated case concludes it makes no difference that the accused may have had a different reason for using the language:Crime and disorder act said:
In DPP v McFarlane (2002) EWHC 485, Rose LJ found that once the "basic" offence was proved (in this case a public order offence) and that racist language was used that was hostile or threatening to the victim, it made no difference that the defendant may have had an additional reason for using the language. The test under section 28(1)(a) was satisfied.
SteveScooby said:
IIRC You can't have a racially/religiously aggravated GBH.
You can GBH, but not when with intent as that's a life sentence crime (I had to check). Martin4x4 said:
I don't see how shouting about the holocaust alone supports that claim of religiously/racially motivation. They are orthagonal issues.
I accept religiously/racially motivation for the holocaust, but cannot see how opposing the holocaust can be religiously/racially motivationed. That is just a civilised reaction. Adding violence doesn't change the grounds of the motivation.
It may not be, but the accused would have been interviewed so perhaps that's where the bulk of the evidence came from around that aspect. I accept religiously/racially motivation for the holocaust, but cannot see how opposing the holocaust can be religiously/racially motivationed. That is just a civilised reaction. Adding violence doesn't change the grounds of the motivation.
Martin4x4 said:
La Liga said:
The CPS said:
To prove that an offence is racially or religiously aggravated, the prosecution has to prove the "basic" offence followed by racial or religious aggravation, as defined in section 28 Crime and Disorder Act 1998. An offence will be racially or religiously aggravated if:
a) at the time of the offence (or shortly before or after), the offender demonstrates to the victim hostility based on the victim's membership (or presumed membership) of a racial or religious group, or
b) the offence is motivated wholly or partly by hostility towards members of a racial or religious group based on their membership (or presumed membership) of that group.
-- demonstrating hostility is not defined by the Act. The ordinary dictionary definition of hostile includes simply being "unfriendly". Proving this limb of the offence requires evidence of words or actions which show hostility toward the victim. However, this hostility may be totally unconnected with the "basic" offence which may have been committed for other, non-racially or religiously motivated reasons. For example, an assault which takes place because of an argument over a parking place, but where the offender then utters racial abuse to the victim of the assault would come within the scope of this part of section 28.
-- motivated by hostility may prove more difficult in practice. In the absence of a clear statement by the accused that his/her actions were motivated by his hostility to his victim based on his race or religious belief, for example, an admission under caution, how can motive be shown? In some cases, background evidence could well be important if relevant to establish motive, for example, evidence of membership of, or association with, a racist group, or evidence of expressed racist views in the past might, depending on the facts, be admissible in evidence.
a) at the time of the offence (or shortly before or after), the offender demonstrates to the victim hostility based on the victim's membership (or presumed membership) of a racial or religious group, or
b) the offence is motivated wholly or partly by hostility towards members of a racial or religious group based on their membership (or presumed membership) of that group.
-- demonstrating hostility is not defined by the Act. The ordinary dictionary definition of hostile includes simply being "unfriendly". Proving this limb of the offence requires evidence of words or actions which show hostility toward the victim. However, this hostility may be totally unconnected with the "basic" offence which may have been committed for other, non-racially or religiously motivated reasons. For example, an assault which takes place because of an argument over a parking place, but where the offender then utters racial abuse to the victim of the assault would come within the scope of this part of section 28.
-- motivated by hostility may prove more difficult in practice. In the absence of a clear statement by the accused that his/her actions were motivated by his hostility to his victim based on his race or religious belief, for example, an admission under caution, how can motive be shown? In some cases, background evidence could well be important if relevant to establish motive, for example, evidence of membership of, or association with, a racist group, or evidence of expressed racist views in the past might, depending on the facts, be admissible in evidence.
So if the accused expressed, for example, a hatred of Muslims, even though Galloway is not one, but supports them, then it is still religiously motivated?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff