Connolly v R.

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant was charged on indictment with an offence of inciting racial hatred contrary to section 19(1) of the Public Order Act 1986. The particulars alleged that on 29 July 2024, the Appellant published and distributed threatening, abusive, or insulting written material on the social media platform X (formerly Twitter) with intent to stir up racial hatred or in circumstances likely to do so. The Appellant pleaded guilty on 2 September 2024 and was sentenced on 31 October 2024 by the Recorder of Birmingham to 31 months’ imprisonment. The Appellant’s application for leave to appeal against the sentence was referred to the full court, and the appeal was heard on 15 May 2025.

On 29 July 2024, a tragic attack in Southport resulted in the murder of three children and injuries to others. A false rumour circulated on social media that the perpetrator was an illegal immigrant. The Appellant, a 41-year-old childminder with approximately 9,000 followers on X, posted a message that evening which included calls for mass deportation and arson against hotels housing migrants, along with hostile references to government officials. The message was removed after about three and a half hours but had been widely viewed and reposted. Subsequent investigations revealed additional messages from the Appellant expressing hostile views about illegal immigrants. Following her arrest on 6 August 2024, the Appellant admitted posting the offending tweet but denied any racial intent, attributing her conduct to rage over the Southport incident, and later issued an apology drafted by a third party.

The Appellant was charged and remanded in custody, with proceedings progressing through the magistrates' court to the Crown Court. The charge was based on section 19(1) of the Public Order Act 1986, which criminalises publishing or distributing threatening, abusive, or insulting written material with intent or likelihood to stir up racial hatred. The maximum penalty is seven years’ imprisonment. The prosecution alleged the Appellant acted with intent to stir up racial hatred.

The Appellant pleaded guilty without proposing a specific basis of plea, and sentencing was adjourned for reports to be obtained. The sentencing hearing considered the Sentencing Council’s definitive guideline for offences under section 19, which categorises culpability and harm levels to determine sentencing ranges. The prosecution argued for the highest culpability and harm categories, citing the timing and social climate as aggravating factors. The defence accepted the categorisation but submitted mitigating factors including the timing of the tweet before violence erupted and subsequent attempts by the Appellant to quell violence.

The Recorder sentenced the Appellant to 31 months’ imprisonment after considering aggravating factors, including the timing of the publication amid a sensitive social climate and widespread disorder, and mitigating factors such as lack of previous convictions, personal circumstances including bereavement, and remorse. The Appellant appealed the sentence on grounds of manifest excessiveness, disputing the categorisation of culpability and the weight given to mitigating factors.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentencing judge miscategorised the offence under the Sentencing Council guideline by assigning it to category A ("high culpability") rather than category B ("medium culpability").
2. Whether the sentencing judge failed to give sufficient weight to mitigating factors, thus resulting in a manifestly excessive sentence.
3. Whether the Appellant received adequate legal advice concerning the plea and the implications of the sentencing guideline, particularly regarding the concession of intent to incite serious violence.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The sentencing judge erred by categorising the offence as high culpability (category A) when the Appellant did not intend to incite serious violence, but rather expressed angry hyperbole and misdirected anguish.
• The mitigating factors, including the Appellant’s personal tragedy, remorse, and attempts to quell violence, significantly outweighed the aggravating factors, warranting a sentence below the guideline starting point, potentially a suspended sentence.
• The Appellant was not properly advised by her legal representative about the nature of the plea, the sentencing guideline, or the concession to intent to incite serious violence.

Respondent's Arguments

• The prosecution maintained the offence involved high culpability (category A) due to the clear incitement to serious violence in the offending tweet.
• The sentencing judge properly considered all aggravating and mitigating factors, and the sentence was within the proper range.
• The legal representative provided appropriate advice, explained the sentencing guideline and implications, and the Appellant understood and accepted the consequences of her plea.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed the language of the offending tweet and found it to be a clear incitement to serious violence, justifying the prosecution’s categorisation of high culpability under the sentencing guideline. The court noted the Appellant pleaded guilty without proposing a basis of plea and did not challenge the categorisation during sentencing.

The court carefully considered the oral evidence regarding the adequacy of legal advice. It found the legal representative to be credible and conscientious, having explained the sentencing guideline, the implications of the plea, and the possibility of a Newton hearing. The court rejected the Appellant’s claim that she lacked understanding of the plea’s consequences, finding her evidence not credible given her intelligence, the contemporaneous records, and her acceptance of the sentencing note.

Regarding mitigation, the court acknowledged the Appellant’s personal tragedy and remorse but agreed with the sentencing judge that these did not significantly reduce her culpability for a serious offence involving incitement to violence against large groups. The court found that the judge had properly weighed aggravating and mitigating factors and that the sentence was not manifestly excessive.

Holding and Implications

The court REFUSED the application for leave to appeal against sentence, concluding there was no arguable basis to find the sentence manifestly excessive.

The sentence of 31 months’ imprisonment imposed by the sentencing judge remains in effect. The court declined to make a loss of time order. No new precedent was established by this decision, and the ruling primarily confirms the proper application of sentencing guidelines and the importance of informed legal advice in plea decisions.