R v White

Factual and Procedural Background

On 13 November 2000, in the Crown Court at Blackfriars before Mr Recorder Lafferty and a jury, the Appellant was convicted by a majority of 10 to 2 of an offence of racially aggravated fear or provocation of violence under section 31 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. He was sentenced on 4 December to 9 months imprisonment. The Appellant had been acquitted, by direction of the Recorder, of attempted theft, which arose from an incident on 14 July 2000 involving the complainant, a bus conductress from Sierra Leone, West Africa. The Appellant boarded a bus and was alleged to have put his hand into a female passenger’s handbag and, upon leaving the bus, to have used threatening, abusive, or insulting words or behaviour towards the complainant with intent to cause fear of immediate unlawful violence. The case raised the issue of whether the use of the term "African" in the phrase "African bitch" constituted hostility based on membership of a racial group under the statutory definition of racially aggravated offences.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the use of the term "African" in the alleged abusive language constitutes hostility based on membership (or presumed membership) of a racial group within the meaning of section 28 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.
2. Whether the Appellant can be liable for a racially aggravated offence if he belongs to the same racial group as the victim.
3. Whether the jury should have been discharged following the Appellant’s acquittal of attempted theft due to potential prejudice.
4. Whether evidence of the Appellant’s conduct upon arrest shortly after the incident was admissible and relevant to the offence under section 31.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The expression "African bitch" does not demonstrate hostility based on membership of a racial group as defined by the statute.
• The term "African" is too broad and diverse, encompassing many nationalities, cultures, and ethnicities, and thus does not meet the statutory definition of race, colour, nationality, or ethnic or national origins.
• It is submitted that the Appellant, being of the same racial group as the victim, cannot be guilty of a racially aggravated offence based on hostility to a member of his own group.
• The jury’s knowledge of the attempted theft charge, from which the Appellant was acquitted, prejudiced their consideration of the racially aggravated offence, warranting discharge.
• Evidence of the Appellant’s conduct on arrest, including further abusive language, should have been excluded as it was not contemporaneous with the offence.

Respondent's Arguments

• The term "African" denotes a racial group defined by reference to race within the statutory meaning.
• Dictionary definitions and case law support that "African" is commonly understood as a racial group characterized by common physical features.
• Hostility can be shown towards a person of the same racial group; there is no legal bar to criminal liability on that basis.
• The trial judge's discretion to allow the trial to continue after the acquittal on attempted theft was proper, and the jury was properly directed.
• Evidence of conduct shortly after the offence was relevant to the full sequence of events and properly admitted with appropriate directions to the jury.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by examining the statutory definition of a racially aggravated offence under sections 28 and 31 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, focusing on whether the term "African" in the abusive language used by the Appellant demonstrated hostility based on the victim’s membership of a racial group.

Relying on the precedent in Mandla v Dowell Lee, the court considered the characteristics that define an ethnic or racial group, including shared history, cultural tradition, and common descent. The court accepted the submission that "African" is a broad term encompassing diverse cultures and peoples but concluded that it nevertheless denotes a racial group within the statutory meaning, particularly as commonly understood in England and Wales.

The court acknowledged dictionary definitions and prior case law emphasizing the broad, non-technical interpretation of "race" and "racial group" in legislation. It rejected the Appellant’s argument that the term "African" failed to meet the statutory criteria, holding that the word describes a group regarded as having common physical features and origin.

Regarding the second ground, the court held that there is no legal impediment to criminal liability for racially aggravated offences where the offender and victim share the same racial group, citing the decision in Director of Public Prosecutions v Rishan Kqumar Pal.

The court also found no merit in the submission that the jury should have been discharged after the acquittal on attempted theft, noting the trial judge’s discretion and proper directions to the jury. The admission of evidence of the Appellant’s conduct upon arrest was deemed fair and relevant to understanding the full sequence of events, with appropriate judicial directions mitigating any potential prejudice.

Consequently, the court concluded that the trial judge’s rulings were correct and that the verdict was safe.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED the appeal against conviction.

The direct effect of this decision is the affirmation of the Appellant’s conviction for racially aggravated fear or provocation of violence. The ruling clarifies that the term "African" falls within the statutory definition of a racial group for the purposes of racially aggravated offences under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. It also establishes that hostility based on racial group membership can be found even if the offender and victim belong to the same racial group. No broader precedent beyond the facts of this case was set.