Sentencing Guidance and Plea Advice in Racial Hatred Offences: Connolly v R [2025] EWCA Crim 657

Introduction

This commentary examines the Court of Appeal’s decision in Connolly v R [2025] EWCA Crim 657, handed down on 20 May 2025 by the England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). The applicant, Lucy Connolly, pleaded guilty to inciting racial hatred under section 19(1) of the Public Order Act 1986 by publishing a highly inflammatory social-media post in the wake of a tragic mass murder. She was sentenced to 31 months’ custody and sought leave to appeal on grounds of manifest excess and defective advice about her intent and culpability under the Sentencing Council’s definitive guideline.

Key issues:

Whether the judge mis‐categorised the offence (high vs. medium culpability) under the guideline;
Whether Connolly received adequate advice from her counsel on the guideline, the legal effect of her plea, and her intent to incite serious violence;
Whether the weight given to aggravating and mitigating factors rendered the sentence manifestly excessive.

Parties:

Applicant: Lucy Connolly, convicted of inciting racial hatred;
Respondent: The Crown (R).

Summary of the Judgment

The full court refused Connolly’s application for leave to appeal. It held:

Connolly’s tweet (“Mass deportation now. Set fire to all the fucking hotels…”) plainly amounted to an intention to incite serious violence and met category A1 of the Sentencing Council guideline for racial‐hatred offences.
Defence counsel (Mr Muir) gave full and proper advice: he explained the guideline’s categories, Newton‐hearing risk, sentencing starting point, and obtained Connolly’s informed endorsement of her plea route.
Connolly’s contrary evidence about ignorance of the guideline and her concessions was rejected as inherently implausible.
The judge’s balancing of one major aggravating factor (timing in a “particularly sensitive social climate”) against a suite of mitigating factors fell well within the permissible sentencing range; no manifest excess.
Accordingly, the 31-month custodial term stood.

Analysis

Statutory and Guideline Framework

Section 19(1) of the Public Order Act 1986 criminalises the publication of threatening, abusive or insulting material intended to stir up racial hatred (or likely to have that effect). The Sentencing Council’s definitive guideline for racial‐hatred offences categorises offences by culpability (A: high, B: medium, C: low) and harm (1: threatened death/serious violence, 2: serious harassment, etc.). A1 carries a starting point of 3 years and a range of 2–6 years custody.

Precedents and Practice Directions Cited

Although the judgment does not cite earlier appellate decisions by name, it rests on settled sentencing and procedural law:

Sentencing Act 2020, s 59 & 60: courts must follow relevant guidelines and categorise offences.
Criminal Practice Directions, para 9.3.3: written notice of any factual basis of plea.
Newton hearing doctrine: where factual disputes affect sentence, judge may hear evidence to resolve them (R v Newton [1982] 1 WLR 1393).

Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning can be divided into two branches:

1. Culpability and Plea Concessions

The tweet’s literal call for mass violence allowed no realistic basis to deny an intent to incite serious violence (category A1).
Both prosecution and defence, in their sentencing notes, had agreed on category A1; the judge was entitled to adopt that consensus.
Connolly’s plea endorsement—recorded in writing—confirmed her understanding that she was conceding an A1 offence with a three-year starting point.
The court found defence counsel credible in explaining the guideline, Newton hearings, and securing Connolly’s informed choice on plea.
Connolly’s denial of understanding was rejected in light of her articulate courtroom evidence and demonstration of comprehension of other sentencing documents.

2. Balancing Aggravating and Mitigating Factors

Aggravating: timing amid a wave of racially motivated disorder; widespread dissemination (310,000 views, 940 reposts); inflammatory content.
Mitigating: no previous convictions; genuine remorse; personal tragedy (death of young son and PTSD); primary carer responsibilities; first custodial sentence.
The judge increased the starting point from 3 to 3½ years to reflect the sensitivity of the moment. He then applied a 25% reduction (credit for plea) to arrive at 31 months.
The Court of Appeal found this adjustment fell comfortably within the 2–6 year range for A1 offences and was not “manifestly excessive.”

Impact on Future Cases

This decision underscores several principles likely to guide future criminal practice:

Rigorous application of sentencing guidelines: consent by both parties to guideline categorisation will ordinarily be adopted by sentencing courts.
Duty of defence counsel: to explain fully the consequences of a guilty plea, including relevant guideline categories and the risk of Newton hearings, and to obtain clear client instructions in writing.
Appellate scrutiny: a plea‐based concession to intent (e.g., serious violence) is hard to revisit absent compelling evidence of misadvice.
Balance of factors: judges have wide discretion in weighing aggravating vs. mitigating circumstances; appellate courts defer unless the sentence lies outside the permissible range.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Category A1 offence: an act intended to prompt death or serious violence (highest culpability and harm), starting at 3 years custody.
Newton hearing: a mini-trial on disputed facts relevant to sentencing; may risk losing full credit for a guilty plea if unsuccessful.
Sentencing guideline: a structured framework set by the Sentencing Council to ensure consistency and transparency.
Aggravating/Mitigating factors: circumstances that increase or decrease the seriousness of an offence or the offender’s culpability, shaping the final sentence.
Plea endorsement: a written acknowledgement by the defendant of the factual and legal concessions underpinning a guilty plea.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal’s decision in Connolly v R reaffirms the centrality of the Sentencing Council’s guidelines in racial-hatred cases and clarifies the defence duty to secure a defendant’s informed plea. By upholding a 31-month term for a category A1 offence, the court signals that inflammatory calls for mass violence at a sensitive moment will attract substantial custody. This judgment will guide both advocates and lower courts in ensuring that guilty pleas are accompanied by clear, written client instructions and that sentencing guideline categories are applied consistently and transparently.