Skip to main content

Misogyny to become a hate crime

Nottinghamshire Police will record and investigate misogyny as a hate crime



Nottinghamshire Police have decided to classify any behaviour perceived to be misogynistic as hate crimes. This includes such things as wolf-whistles, unwanted texts, taking an unwanted photograph and sexual harassment.

A spokeswoman for Nottinghamshire Police said that categorising misogynistic behaviour as a hate crime and highlighting the issue would lead to increased reports and therefore a higher number of charges. This is interesting since the police also admit that they will be applying the label “hate crime” and investigating allegations that “do not reach the charging threshold” – or to put it another way, things that are not crimes and thus cannot result in a higher number of charges.

Wolf-whistles and the taking of unwanted photographs are not currently criminal offences unless they go beyond a one-off incident and become harassment. So far as I am aware, there are no plans to criminalise these behaviours, although I read in the Times that they are offences in other countries. Unwanted text messages is a very broad label – I get them all the time from my local pizza shop – but there is a point where sending unwanted messages becomes a crime, usually harassment although other offences could be committed depending on the content of the message. The police already investigate these and have done for many years

Interestingly, the Times reports that [g]roping a woman will be classed as a hate crime for the first time and may result in a criminal charge.” I hate to break it to you guys at the Times but groping a man or a woman has been a crime for a very long time and I would hope Nottinghamshire Police have always taken that type of thing seriously.

Just to put this decision into context, Nottinghamshire Police is dealing with £54 million budget cuts over the past 4 years and £12 million of budget cuts to come. The force has been looking to make cuts, most notably by axing the forces city division and, potentially cutting 400 officers over three years. The Chief Constable of Nottingham Police has recently quit and his deputy has delayed her retirement to become temporary Chief Constable for eight-months until April 2017. 

All these leaves me wondering whether Nottinghamshire Police actually have the resources to take on investigations into matters that are clearly never going to result in criminal charges and how they’d go about such an investigation.

Will police officers be sent to speak to builders accused of wolf-whistling? Will they expend resources tracking the man responsible down? What if he doesn’t wish to speak to the police, will they arrest him? Would such an arrest even be lawful? Section 24 of Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 would suggest not since an officer can have no grounds for suspecting that somebody has committed an offence when they know the thing they are investigating is not an offence. True they could dress it up as harassment but all that will do is waste time and money not to mention open the force up to wrongful detention lawsuits!

I think the reality is that despite the force’s claim that all reports will be investigated, the reality is that the police are unlikely to have the resources or the powers to investigate the trivial incidents at which this new policy is aimed. Serious incidents will continue to be investigated as always. So, when all is said and done, this policy looks like a paper exercise designed to record incidents rather than tackle them. It also looks rather like a publicity stunt for a new Chief Constable in the first few weeks of her job and looking to make a mark.

Comments

  1. I would have to assume that Nottinghamshire is completely free of serious crime so that its Boys and Girls in Blue have time to inbestigate silly acts such as wolf-whistles.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ched Evans

Before I begin, I will say that at around 4,500 words this is probably the longest blog I’ve ever posted but I think it’s all necessary to set the scene for this case and explain the background that has been largely ignored or airbrushed in the press. Despite its length, I have not attempted to include every little detail of either fact or law but have done my best to provide a balanced picture of the Ched Evans case, what happened and why the courts reached the decisions they did. There has been so much written about the Ched Evans case over the past weekend, much of it based on a very shaky grasp of the facts and law, that I decided I would read up about the case and weigh in (hopefully on a slightly firmer footing than most of the articles I’ve read so far).

Broadly speaking there seem to be three groups who have opinions on the case:
1.Sexual violence groups (including people describing themselves as “radical feminists”) who appear to take the view that the case is awful, the Court o…

How do the police decide whether to charge a suspect?

A question I’m often asked by clients (and in a roundabout way by people arriving at this blog using searches that ask the question in a variety of ways), is “how do the police decide whether to charge or take no further action (NFA)?”
What are the options?
Let’s have a quick think about what options are available to the police at the end of an investigation.
First, they can charge or report you for summons to attend court.  Charging means that you are given police bail and are required to attend court in person.  A summons is an order from the court for you to attend or for you to send a solicitor on your behalf.  In many cases where a person is summonsed, the court will allow you the option of entering a plea by post.
Second, you may be given a caution.  These can be a simple caution, which on the face of it is a warning not to be naughty in future, or it can be a conditional caution.  Conditions could include a requirement to pay for the cost of damage or compensation, etc.  Either…

Bid to prevent defendants knowing who accuses them of a crime

When I read The Trial by Kafka and Nineteen Eighty-Four by Orwell, I took them as warnings of how a bad justice system wrecks lives of those caught up in it. Sadly, some Members of Parliament and the House of Lords seem to view the books more as a guide to how they would like our Criminal Justice System to run. Today, I read of plans to hide the names of accusers and witnesses from defendants in a large number of cases. Victims of sexual offences, such as rape, have had the right to lifelong anonymity for many years now. This means that it is a criminal offence to publish information that will lead to a complainant being identified. A Bill currently being considered by Parliament would extend that anonymity to bar defendants and their lawyers knowing the name of the person accusing them. This would apply not only in sexual offences, as has been reported in the press, but also in violent offences.
The anonymity currently offered to victims of sexual offences is not total, the complainant…