Report comment

"The police and the CPS have agreed the following definition for identifying and flagging hate crimes: ‘Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person’s disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation or transgender identity or perceived transgender identity.’"

This definition is logically incoherent. It allows an offence to be defined as a 'hate crime' even if, in fact, no such hostility or prejudice motivated it. The fact that the victim honestly (but wrongly) thinks otherwise is sufficiently.

This incoherence further manifests itself as follows:

"At present, crime can only be prosecuted as a hate crime if it falls within one of these legislative categories and the victim interprets the behaviour to be ‘hostile’. In such circumstances, the CPS will charge for the baseline offence but an uplift tariff can be applied for at the sentencing stage, if hostility can be proven."

Saying "if hostility can be proven" would make sense if the prosecution had to prove that the accused actually had such hostility. However, under this definition, they don't. Under this definition, the victim merely has to honestly say they consider it hostile. Now, call be cynical, but I don't think this will require much proof...