Full text: Social media hate crime must be treated as a 'priority', police told
By Hayley Dixon, Special Correspondent 25 January 2021 • 9:00pm

There has been criticism of the amount of resources spent policing social media Credit: PA Social media hate crime must be treated as “priority” and handled by senior officers, new College of Policing guidance states.

Officers have been told that even where a crime has not been committed, they should consider visiting the accused at work and it should be recorded as a “hate incident” which could show up on criminal record checks.

It has reignited debate over the impact on freedom of speech and the use of police resources. The guidance, released quietly at the end of last year, is now facing a judicial review by campaigners who say that it could be “actively harmful” as it allows police to record even false or malicious accusations.

Harry Miller, a former police officer and founder of Fair Cop, described the “absolutely terrifying” guidance as a “move to a police state” which criminalises people for expressing an opinion.
“The College of Policing is a hate factory – it takes every day emotions, every day antagonism, every day banality and it turns it into hate,” he said. The dictate to treat hate crimes as “priority incidents” comes amid controversy over the downgrading of priority on other crimes such as burglary, which some forces and senior officers have said that they do not have the time to investigate fully.

Final decisions around where to use resources and budgets are made by Police and Crime Commissioners and Chief Constables. But the college states when forces receive allegations of hate crime “positive action should be taken, not just a record made” and they should “require the notification and/or attendance of supervisors or investigators”. It advises that “supervisors should take an active interest in overseeing the investigative” and a “duty inspector or supervisor should consider attending the scene”. For transgender or sexual orientation hate crimes, officers are warned that they should not question someone about their identity unless essential to the investigation.

The new guidance also widens the list of protected categories including adding cross dressers to those who could be a victim of a hate crime or incident.

Despite senior judges criticising police for labelling complainants as “victims” before a conviction, the term is used throughout the guidance even though the college acknowledges that in some cases a crime will not have even been reported. It states that a “victim” does not have to “justify or provide evidence of their belief” that it a hate crime has been committed and officers “should not directly challenge this perception”.

Even if a crime has not been committed, if the “victim” believes the action was motivated by hostility it “should be recorded and flagged as a non-crime hate incident”. In these incidents officers are instructed to “consider whether it is proportionate to the incident, and the aim of the contact, to contact people involved in the incident at their place of work or study, or in a manner which is likely to alert a third party…

“Police should always consider the least intrusive method of contact for achieving their proportionate aims, eg, a telephone call, letter or visit." The guidance sets out for the first time that these non-crimes could be disclosed to a current or prospective employer under an enhanced criminal record check.

The Telegraph revealed earlier this year that police had recorded nearly 120,000 “non-crime” hate incidents which could impact on people’s ability to get jobs over the course of six years. The College of Policing states that recording is necessary as forces should “be able to analyse [non-crimes] so that preventive activity can take place”.

However, Fair Cop has sent Freedom of Information requests to every police force in the country and not one has said that they are analysing non-crime hate incidents to use as intelligence for actual crimes.

Mr Miller, who last year won a legal challenge against Humberside Police after they recorded a ‘non-crime hate incident’ against him, is due to go back to the Court of Appeal to challenge the College of Policing guidance in March. Sarah Phillimore, a barrister and co-founder of Fair Cop, is leading a separate judicial review against the guidance which is in its pre-action stages.

The College of Policing said that it could not comment on ongoing legal action. Mr Miller said: “It is easy for police to collect data on non-crimes from tweets, so much easier than tackling proper hate crime which is speech that is so volatile that all it lacks is an opportunity to stab someone.”

He warned that “normal human motions” were being criminalised as the definitions of hostility in the guidance, which is required to be proven before a prosecution takes place, include “unfriendliness”, “antagonism” and “spite”. According to the latest official figures, there were 105,090 hate crimes recorded by the police in England and Wales in the year ending March 2020, with the number almost doubling in the last five years. The offence was first introduced in response to the murder of Stephen Lawrence.

Assistant Chief Constable Iain Raphael, Director, College of Policing, said: “Police guidance is clear that any response should be proportionate and take account of the unique circumstances that apply to each case. These issues were argued at the High Court last year and it ruled that College of Policing guidance is lawful and the full judgement is available online. “Guidance for police recognises the importance of rights of freedom of speech and it makes clear that investigating officers should seek the advice of senior colleagues where they suspect a complaint may be vexatious or politically motivated.”