Meeting of the Parliament 07 June 2018
I join colleagues in thanking Lord Bracadale for putting together his review of hate crime legislation. In a civilised society, hate crime of any kind—whether the result of intolerance, bigotry, racism or prejudice—must not be considered acceptable. It is a black mark on the conscience of the nation that, in this day and age, it continues.
Hate crime legislation is always difficult to create effectively, because we need adequately to weigh the need for freedom of expression against the need to tackle hate crime. Lord Bracadale’s report acknowledges the importance of striking that balance and includes the recommendation:
“A protection of freedom of expression provision ... should be included in any new legislation relating to stirring up offences.”
Lord Bracadale ruled out an aggravator of
“hostility towards a political entity”
on the ground that
“The freedom of speech to engage in political protest is vitally important.”
That recommendation is very important. Freedom of speech is one of the things that makes living in this country special, and it is a value that we need to protect while ensuring that hate crime legislation in this country is tough.
I move on to the issue of criminal aggravators. In his report, Lord Bracadale acknowledges that the elderly population is often preyed upon, primarily not because of hatred of their age but because they are perceived to be an easy target for criminals. It is the same for those who are disabled. Lord Bracadale noted that
“a proportion of offences committed against disabled persons are based, not on hostility, but on perceived vulnerability.”
The criminal law should acknowledge that those are particularly horrid and serious offences because they aim to take advantage of the most vulnerable in our society. We need to stand up for them and give them greater protection under the law. I believe that there would be wide support among stakeholders and the public for the idea of making an aggravator of the exploitation of vulnerable groups.
In its submission to Lord Bracadale’s review, the Coalition for Racial Equality and Rights said that
“it may be better to create a vulnerability related aggravation which is separate from the offences motivated by malice and ill-will.”
Action on Elder Abuse stated:
“In relation to crimes such as theft, fraud or assault (any many more), we know that older people are often specifically targeted due to their actual or perceived vulnerability. This may be based on physical frailty, mental capacity, memory difficulties, loneliness and isolation, or dependency on others for basic care needs.”
I hope that the Government takes on board those comments and makes that issue a top priority in the coming months. There should be no delay in introducing an aggravator of the exploitation of those who are, for example, elderly or disabled. The Government should get tough on the criminals who are targeting vulnerable members of our communities.
I took part in the stage 3 debate on the bill to repeal the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012, and I remember hearing from various SNP ministers and members that there would be gaps in the legislation if that piece of poor legislation was repealed. Annabelle Ewing said that repealing the act
“will leave a gap in legislation.”—[Official Report, 15 March 2018; c 108.]
She made that point numerous times, although I and other colleagues made the point that it would not leave a gap in the legislation. I am glad that, in his report, Lord Bracadale agreed with us.