As Mark Twain didn’t say, reports of the death of non-crime hate incidents have been greatly exaggerated.
Last week the Metropolitan Police, in the aftermath of the Graham Linehan farrago, announced that they would no longer “investigate” non-crime hate incidents. But, as ever, the precise language used in these statements is important. Just because there might no longer be an investigation into non-criminal matters doesn’t mean the police will stop recording them.
This week, the Home Office Minister Lord Hanson was questioned in the House of Lords on the Labour government’s latest position. Based on the Minister’s comments any reason for optimism that the entire time-wasting practice is to be consigned to history would appear to be misplaced. Although acknowledging that, “the non-crime hate incidents regime was not working effectively” he went on to say that observers, “should not lose sight of the fact that valuable information is gained by people reporting non-crime hate incidents.”
Stories abound of some of the most ridiculous examples of “non-crime incidents” which have been recorded by the police. One of my favourites is the police decision to log a hate incident after a couple were asked to leave a pub after having sex in the toilets. The amorous couple in question claimed the actions taken by the pub were “hate-related” because the pair were transgender.
Meanwhile, the authorities seem to struggle to point to examples where their recording has actually helped prevent serious criminality. The police and government claim that they are necessary to gather “intelligence”, but what sort of criminality is this “intelligence” useful for combatting? What are the specific cases where they have proven valuable? Was it “intelligence” which contributed to the arrest of Graham Linehan at Heathrow earlier this year? How many lives have been saved as a result of this free-speech chilling recording practice?
As Policy Exchange has documented, both Labour and Conservative governments have contributed to overseeing the creation, expansion and codification of non-crime hate incidents over the last twenty-five years.
It was the 1999 Macpherson Review into the murder of Stephen Lawrence, set up by the Blair government, which first recommended that police record non-crime racist incidents. Importantly, only the perception of racism would be required on the part of the “victim or any other person” for a record to be made — no objective test was to be required. A 2006 review by then-High Court Judge Sir Adrian Fulford into hate crime and non-crime hate incidents expanded the concept to include other “protected characteristics”.
The College of Policing — Theresa May’s creation as Conservative Home Secretary — embedded non-crime hate incidents into policing doctrine through the 2014 “Hate Crime Operational Guidance”. This Guidance was later found by the Court of Appeal to be unlawful in the case of Miller v College of Policing — Miller being an ex-police officer who took on the College of Policing on freedom of expression grounds, eventually winning his case in 2021.
How was the policing blob able to persuade not one but two Conservative Home Secretaries of the case for retention?
Rather than taking the opportunity to destroy non-crime hate incidents once and for all, it was two Conservative Home Secretaries who later codified them in law. Priti Patel introduced the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 which set out that there should be requirements for recording of data relating to “hate incidents” and her successor, Suella Braverman, published the relevant Codes of Practice in 2023.
Given the enthusiasm of today’s opposition front bench for the scrapping of non-crime hate incidents, why were successive Conservative Home Secretaries in government so weak as to choose to solidify the position of non-crime hate incidents through regulation rather than abolishing them entirely? How was the policing blob able to persuade not one but two Conservative Home Secretaries of the case for retention?
Part of the explanation can be found in the comments two weeks ago of Lord Herbert, the current Chair of the College of Policing and former Conservative Policing Minister, at the Second Reading of the Crime and Policing Bill in the House of Lords. He said that while: “the current approach and use of non-crime hate incidents is not fit for purpose” there was a need for “broad reform to ensure that policing can focus on genuine harm and risk within communities”.
It is the use of the word “harm” which is particularly notable here. Over the last thirty years, the sense that the police exist to prevent “harm” has been increasingly adopted. While once rarely used, today the concept can be found in any number of policing strategies or policies.
And yet, the meaning of “harm” — potentially almost anything unpleasant that might occur — is nebulous indeed. Importantly it, like the original idea of what constitutes a “racist incident”, is an entirely subjective assessment often made by the “victim”. How is harm to be judged? Against what criteria? What is the objective measure? Are mere words really sufficient to meet the threshold that harm has been met?
The only real solution to the many problems caused by non-crime hate incidents is their abolition
Focusing on the concept of “harm” has led to an expansion in policing’s conception of its mission far beyond its primary task. Rather than first considering what “harm” may or may not have been caused, the police should narrow their focus on whether there has been an actual crime. After all it is not, contrary to what some may believe, the job of the police to cure every ill in our society or prevent every unpleasantness which may occur.
The only real solution to the many problems caused by non-crime hate incidents is their abolition. It is time for the government and policing to stop dilly-dallying around and get policing back to focusing on what matters to most of the public: fighting actual crime.
