Introduction

The case of Davison, R. v ([2020] EWCA Crim 665) presents a significant development in the assessment and sentencing of offenses related to the publication of material intended to stir up racial hatred. The appellant, convicted by the Crown Court at Cardiff for publishing offensive material on Instagram, appealed against his sentence to the England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). This commentary delves into the intricacies of the judgment, analyzing its implications for future cases involving similar offenses.

Summary of the Judgment

On August 28, 2019, the appellant was convicted of three counts of publishing material with intent to stir up racial hatred, receiving a concurrent sentence of four years imprisonment. The offenses involved offensive language and a provocative photograph posted on a private Instagram account with limited followers. The appellant claimed ignorance of the offensive nature of his posts and attributed his actions to alcohol abuse. The trial judge considered the severity of both the language and the accompanying image, deciding that these elements collectively demonstrated an intent to incite hatred. The appellant's appeal against the sentence was ultimately dismissed by the Court of Appeal, affirming the original sentencing decision.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

A pivotal precedent in this case is R v Bitton [2019] EWCA Crim 1372, where the Court of Appeal dealt with similar offenses involving the publication of threatening and offensive material on Twitter with intent to stir up racial hatred. In Bitton, the appellant was sentenced to two years and eight months, considering the severity of the language and the public nature of the posts. In Davison, the court referenced this precedent to evaluate the appellant's actions, particularly emphasizing the aggravated factor of the accompanying photograph. The comparison underscores the Court's stance on the compounded seriousness when textual and visual elements are used in hate incitement.

Legal Reasoning

The Court of Appeal's legal reasoning in affirming the original sentence hinged on several factors:

• Nature of the Publication: The combination of vile language and a threatening image was deemed to significantly elevate the severity of the offense.
• Intent to Incite Hatred: The court accepted that both the textual content and the photograph were crafted to provoke racial and religious animosity.
• Potential for Dissemination: Despite the private setting of the Instagram account, the ease of information sharing on social media platforms meant that the material could reach a broader audience.
• Impact on Victims: The fear and distress expressed by Ms. Ali, who was not a follower but received the post, highlighted the real-world consequences of the appellant's actions.

The judge also evaluated the appellant's defenses, including his intoxication and claim to not hold racist views. However, these were insufficient to mitigate the deliberate nature of his publications.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the legal framework surrounding hate speech, particularly in the digital age where content can quickly transcend intended limited audiences. By upholding a stringent sentence, the Court of Appeal emphasizes the judiciary's commitment to deterring both textual and visual forms of hate incitement. Future cases may reference this judgment to argue for consideration of multiple mediums used to propagate hate, ensuring comprehensive assessment of intent and impact.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Publishing Material with Intent to Stir Up Racial Hatred: This offense involves disseminating content that is intended to promote hostility or violence against individuals based on their race or religion.

Concurrent Sentence: When someone receives multiple prison sentences that run at the same time, rather than one after the other.

Precedent: A legal case that establishes a principle or rule that is followed by courts when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts.

Aggravating Factor: An aspect of a crime that increases its severity, such as the use of a weapon or targeting a vulnerable group.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal's decision in R v Davison underscores the judiciary's rigorous approach to combating hate speech, especially when it encompasses both written and visual elements. By affirming the original sentence, the court sends a clear message about the unacceptability of such offenses and the necessity of robust deterrents. This judgment serves as a critical reference point for future cases, highlighting the importance of considering the multifaceted nature of hate incitement in the digital realm. Consequently, legal practitioners and individuals must remain cognizant of the evolving standards in hate speech legislation to navigate and uphold the principles of equality and public safety.