Non-criminal ‘hate incidents’: PSNI must beware of policing thought says ex-chief superinterndent

Norman Baxter, an ex-chief superintendant who worked in the PSNI’s serious crime branch, made the comments after a landmark case in the High Court in London.

In that case, Harry Miller was visited at his work by Humberside police who left him with the impression he could be prosecuted for online comments about transgenderism – comments which they dubbed “hate incidents”.

The court last week ruled his treatment was unlawful and likened the actions of the police to the Stasi or the Gestapo – but went on to rule it is still lawful in principle for police to compile “hate incident” statistics, as recommended by the College of Policing (a decision which Mr Miller is now appealing).

“Hate crimes” can include things like violence and vandalism, but the definition of “hate incident” is more vague.

The PSNI says “evidence is not the test when reporting a hate incident... the perception of the victim, or any other person is the defining factor”.

Essentially, it can be any event which someone thinks is “motivated by prejudice or hate”.

Last year the PSNI logged 2,419 “hate incidents” and 1,629 “hate crimes”.

The most common kind were racist crimes or incidents, followed by sectarian ones, and then homophobic ones.

Racist incidents and crimes recorded by the PSNI have risen moderately since 2004/05 (633 crimes in 2004/05 and 702 in 2018/19), as have homophobic ones (151 crimes in 2004/05 against 201 in 2018/19).

However, sectarian ones have dropped dramatically (with 1,469 in 2005/06, and 622 such crimes in 2018/19)

The News Letter asked the PSNI if it was going to change tack over “hate incidents” in the wake of the High Court judgement.

It responded: “The court held the College of Policing guidance was legal and proportionate and we intend to continue to follow that.”

The News Letter asked if all ‘hate incidents’ recorded by the PSNI are physically attended by officers.

It said: “Police will make contact with every victim of a hate incident. That contact will take into consideration the wishes of the victim and the needs of the investigation.

“For example, the victim may not wish for police to attend their home therefore it may be more appropriate to facilitate contact at a local station or with the assistance of external support services.”

It had no breakdown of how many “hate incidents” were digital (such as tweets).

The PSNI added: “Any action taken by the investigating officer will be dependent on the circumstances of each case.

“When an incident or crime has been reported to police by the victim or by any other person and they perceive it as being motivated by prejudice or hate, it will be recorded and investigated as a hate incident or crime.

“Reporting incidents helps the police service to identify areas of concern, patterns of behaviour, and may assist in identifying and prosecuting offenders.

“We would strongly encourage victims to continue to report incidents so that we can take action to prevent further escalation.”

Mr Baxter said: “I’d think an organisation [that is] restricted for resources should be focussing on major crime.

“I just wonder how much time and effort is tied up in this administrative process.”

He questioned if police, with their stretched resources, always turn up to the scenes of burglaries or thefts these days, for example.

And whilst it can be useful to gather intelligence about possible hard-line racists, for instance, Mr Baxter said: “Hate incidents are important. But the police should focus their resources on investigating crime.

“Chief constable needs to ensure he has adequate resources to focus on hate incidents and investigating crime. If he doesn’t, he should ensure crime is investigated as a priority.

“In the most extreme cases this could be viewed as policing people’s thoughts.”

John O’Doherty, director of the Rainbow Project, the gay and transgender campaign group which has a member of staff dedicated to hate crimes and incidents, said: “Often hate incidents lead to crimes, and they provide police with a clear history and evidence of the incidents someone has been experiencing.

“For example, someone being called names around their home, which may not be a criminal offence, could escalate then to criminal damage or other sorts of crimes.

“Having that information recorded, having the history of the experiences of an individual recorded, can be hugely beneficial when it comes to investigating crimes.

“They should be recorded and investigated.”

He also said that it could help the authorities map clusters of behaviour, such as homophobia, across a city.

It was put to him that some people would argue this is fine – but that police budgets are extremely tight, and investigations into crimes could be affected as a result.

“I think it’s wrong to suggest there are excessive amounts of money and resources being put into recording hate crimes and hate incidents,” he said.

“There’s no evidence to suggest that.”