Skip to content

Crown Prosecution Service can’t define “hate crime” properly.

You think the above title is a bit too brutal?

Well, it’s not, if the following newspaper headlines are any guide.

First, there is this from the Guardian: “Most newspapers call on Alison Saunders to resign as Director of Public Prosecutions”. (The title “Director of Public Prosecutions is the official title of the head of the CPS).

And from the BBC: “Is CPS on ‘brink of collapse’?

Then the Express weighs in with: “How the Crown Prosecution Service has descended into law and disorder.”

Anyway, let’s get down to the business of definitions.

The CPS definition of a “hate crime” is: “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 race or perceived race; religion or perceived religion; sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation; disability or perceived disability and any crime motivated by hostility or prejudice against a person who is transgender or perceived to be transgender.”

The first piece of nonsense here lies behind the word “perceived” and for the following reasons.

In the case of libel or defamation of character for example, it is not enough for plaintiffs to simply “perceive” that they have been libelled: amazing as it might seem, they must convince a court that defendants have made false statements which have actually damaged plaintiffs’ reputations.

Likewise, in the case of so called “hate crime”, it would be acceptable to increase the punishment if the accused can be shown to have been motivated by prejudice (i.e. “bias” or “bigotry”). But according to the CPS definition of hate crime, there is no need actually to demonstrate that prejudice. All that is needed is for the victim “or any other person” to “perceive” there to be prejudice.

And how do you actually prove that someone “perceives” prejudice? Well it’s impossible! The nearest you can get to ascertaining whether someone “perceives” something is to ask them.

But there is a glaring and obvious problem here – at least it will be obvious to everyone apart from CPS incompetents. It’s that the person who claims to “perceive” there to have been hostility to a race or religion is quite likely to be lying.

For example, if person of race X hits person of race Y, the latter will obviously want as stiff a sentence passed on the former as possible. And if the injured person or one of their relatives can increase the sentence simply by saying “I perceive prejudice to be involved”, then why not make that claim? There’s nothing to lose.

In contrast, the Wikipedia article on hate crime says nothing about “perceive” in the above sense. Of course Wikipedia is not the best legal authority in the country, but it certainly looks like Wiki gives what looks like a normal or sensible definition of hate crime compared to the CPS nonsensical definition.


A further glaring flaw in the CPS definition of hate crime lies behind the word “hostility”, and for the following reasons.

It can well be argued that Islam is a totally unacceptable fascist political movement, e.g. because of terrorist offences committed by Muslims, not to mention genital mutilation, homophobia, suicide bombers – I could go on. Now if I hit someone because I dislike Islam that counts as a “hate crime”. Of course hitting a Muslim because you hate Islam is not acceptable. But there is at least some sort of a rational reason for hitting them, in the same way as dropping bombs on German cities during the Second World War had some sort of rational excuse: defeating Nazism.

In contrast, if I hit someone for totally irrational reasons, for example because I hate rice pudding and all those who like rice pudding, plus I happen to be drunk at the time of the offence, that is a less serious crime in the eyes of the CPS.

So, in essense, the CPS takes a dim view of rationality!

But that’s already obvious from their misuse of the word “prejudice” explained above!

As the barrister Jon Holbrook put it, “….if you’re motivated by hostility towards an Islamist’s religion then you commit a hate crime!

Incidentally, the religion practiced by people in central America around 300 years ago when Europeans first arrived involved human sacrifices – and a particularly brutal form of human sacrifice: victims were tied down while still conscious, their chests were cut open and their hearts were plucked out. Apparently that placated the Sun god or something like that.

But you need to be careful if you want to adopt a “hostile” attitude to that practice: it’s just possible a few adherents to that religion are still around and might be “offended” by your hostility, especially given the numerous disgusting practices indulged in by Muslims: genital mutilation, murdering cartoonists and authors, murdering or mistreating apostates, homophobia, dowry violence, honour killings, beheadings, mowing down pedestrians using trucks or vans. I could go on.

In short, for any half civilised person, there are some perfectly rational reasons for being “hostile” towards Islam.

Now if I hit someone because I hate Islam, that counts as a “hate crime” and the law may serve extra time in prison or pay a larger fine. In contrast if I hit someone for totally irrational reasons, e.g. because I hate rice pudding and all people who I think eat rice pudding, that’s a less serious crime in the eyes of the imbeciles at the CPS.

To summarise, the Crown Prosecution Service and the hate crime legislation it pushes take a dim view of rationality! Put another way, the CPS appears to have accepted the sort of irrational 13th century thinking that looms large in Islam.


As distinct from religion, there is race. Much the same applies here as in the case of religion. That is, there is plenty of evidence that there are significant differences between different races.

For example, some psychologists claim some races have higher IQs than other racial groups.

Jews have won about twenty times as many Nobel prizes per head of population, and so on.

Thus the idea that Britain will to reduced to the sort of shambles that the average African country resembles if too many Africans are allowed into Britain is a perfectly reasonable proposition.

The proposition may not be valid, but it is not totally irrational.

But to repeat, the CPS does not favour rationality. In fact it believes in punishing rationality.

Conclusion: the law is an ass, and the people who set up “hate crime” legislation are no better than the above mentioned genital mutilators, beheaders and homophobes.

And that’s hardly stringent criticism: I mean, according to the CPS, as I understand CPS thinking, those who practice Islam are a laudable crowd.