Hate Crime in Haringey 2005

1. Hate Crime in Haringey 2005 Dr Anthony Goodman Dr Amanda Loumansky Nick Feast Sue Goodman

2. Background to hate crime • Whilst the history of hate motivated crimes in the UK is fairly well established and is not, by any means, a recent phenomenon, it was really only in the 1980’s that the problem started to receive some official recognition. (Bowling and Phillips, 2003) Victim surveys carried out during the 80’s and 90’s also provided evidence of the extent of racist victimisation that existed and made it harder for the government to deny its existence.

3. The U.S. experience • According to Jacobs and Potter (1998) hate crime laws in the US fall into four main categories. Firstly those that enhance sentences for hate motivated offences. Secondly those that redefine existing criminal behaviours as a new crime. Thirdly those that specifically relate to civil rights issues and fourthly those that relate to the collection of data and reporting.

4. The tragedy of Stephen Lawrence • What led to a change, in official attitudes was the killing of a black youth, Stephen Lawrence, who was murdered on 22 April 1993 by a group of white youths shouting racist abuse. The report of the inquiry into the murder was published some 6 years later and was greeted with a great deal of media attention. The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry was more than just a high profile inquiry into the murder of an African-Caribbean teenager and the failure to convict his killers. This inquiry placed the actions of the Metropolitan Police under unprecedented public scrutiny; (2) the construction of young African-Caribbean men as street criminals and drug dealers by the police was challenged; and (3) previous campaigns for justice were remembered and reconnected to the public debate. McLaughlin and Murji (1999)

5. Other issues • While the Stephen Lawrence murder initiated the process of addressing the institutional racism of the police it was clear that wider issues were involved. In the spring and summer of 2001 riots took place in Oldham, Burnley and in the city of Bradford. (Denham,2002) Over the course of a weekend cars, houses and supermarkets were firebombed. According to the Oldham Independent Review 2001 three factors sparked the riots. Firstly National Front Incursions. Secondly the mugging of an elderly white pensioner and thirdly the attack by a group of white men on a house in the predominantly Asian Glodwick area of the town. (BBC News 2001) Similar disturbances took place in Bradford and Burnley during this period.

6. consequences • Events such as these led to the recent Home Office report ‘Improving Opportunity Strengthening Society 2005’ in which the Government prioritises the need to build community cohesion. The aims of the strategy are summarised below.

7. consequences • Improve the way in which the police and other agencies handle reports of racist or religiously motivated incidents. • Improve the reporting of racially motivated incidents. • Ensure vigorous prosecution of racially and religiously aggravated offences. • Reduce racist re-offending. • Providing greater support for victims and witnesses. • Training in conflict resolution for community leaders • Encouraging the role of the voluntary and community sector in promoting good race relations. • Ensuring that promoting community cohesion is an integral part of Housing Market Renewal Pathfinders schemes which are tackling low housing demand and abandonment. • Developing new ways to promote community cohesion in delivering policy on housing management to develop more balanced communities.

8. Legislation • In response to the findings of the Lawrence Report the government implemented the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. The Act originally catered for racially aggravated incidents but has been widened by the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 to include religiously motivated offences.

9. legislation • Where existing offences can be proved to be aggravated by racial or religious hostility then the Crime and Disorder Act allows for additional penalties to reflect the offender’s prejudice towards the victim. The Act creates nine new racially aggravated offences based on pre-existing legislation. Sentences can be enhanced where it can be proved that racial aggravation was present at the time of the offence, except where offences already carry a maximum life sentence.

10. legislation • Further Section 153 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 requires courts to consider racial or religious hostility as an aggravating factor when deciding on the sentence for any offence which is not specifically stated under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. This effectively means that racial or religious aggravation can be taken into consideration by the court in sentencing for any offence.

11. Legislation on homophobic crime • Section 146 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 came into effect in April 2005, empowering courts to impose tougher sentences for offences motivated or aggravated by the victim's sexual orientation in England and Wales.The Criminal Justice Act 2003 does not create an offence for homophobic assault as such. However, it ensures that where an assault involving or was motivated by hostility or prejudice based on disability or sexual orientation (actual or perceived) the judge is required to: • Treat this as an aggravating factor • State in open court any extra elements of the sentence that they are giving for the aggravation.

12. continued • The Criminal Justice Act 2003 does not specify the amount by which sentences should be increased where disability or sexual orientation are aggravating factors. This will be specified in further secondary legislation. • In June 2006 Stonewall welcomed the sentences passed on the murderers of south London barman Jody Dobrowski. The 28 year sentences were increased to reflect the way in which the killing was aggravated by homophobia. It was the first time that an aggravated sentence had been passed in a murder or manslaughter case since Stonewall secured the introduction of 'hate crime' penalties for anti-gay violence.

13. Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 Royal Assent 16.2.2006 In effect from 1.10.2007

14. Amends the Public Order Act 1986 • Introduces a new criminal offence of stirring up racial hatred against a person on racial or religious grounds. • Act extends the offences from individuals to businesses. • Act fills a gap which makes it illegal to threaten people on the basis of race or ethnic background.

15. Victim-perpetrator relationship • The bulk of hate crime literature does not directly address the victim-perpetrator relationship. Largely this appears to be a product of the way in which hate crime is usually defined. It is integral to most definitions of hate crime that the victim is chosen purely on the basis of his or her membership of a particular minority group and consequently the individual identity of the victim is irrelevant.

16. Victim-perpetrator relationship • However there is a solid body of empirical research that indicates the majority of hate crime is committed by persons whom the victim does not know, significantly the 2000 British Crime Survey categorised 54% of the perpetrators of racially motivated incidents as strangers to the victim, including where the respondent could not provide any information on the offender. It is noticeable that in most studies the proportion of incidents involving strangers seems to hover between 50% and 60% leaving something 35% to 45% of incidents involving perpetrators who are other than strangers. For example in the 2000 British Crime Survey 40% of racially motivated incidents were categorised as committed by persons known to the victim. (Mason,2005)

17. Defining Hate Crime • The Crime and Disorder Act 1998, as amended by the Police Reform Act 2002 placed a requirement on local authorities to work together with the police and other agencies and to create and implement crime reduction strategies. To enable this to take place Haringey Safer Communities Partnership was set up. The Partnership is managed by the Haringey Safer Communities Unit who has adopted a largely holistic approach to the management of the strategy

18. Haringey Safer Communities Partnership definition Haringey Safer Communities Partnership’s definition of hate crime as contained in the Crime & Disorder Audit 1998 – 2001 states that it involves: • “…harassment and intimidation to particular communities. The crime categories it covers are racially and homophobic motivated offences, racial and homophobic abuse, age and disability discrimination. This crime type also covers harassment and intimidation targeted against the mentally ill.”

19. Police definition • This definition is different to the definition adopted by the Metropolitan Police. Their definition as contained in the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) Hate Crime Manual as being

20. Metropolitan police definition • “…a crime where the perpetrator’s prejudice against any identifiable group of people is a factor in determining who is victimised. A victim of hate crime does not have to be a member of a minority or someone who is generally considered to be vulnerable. For example the friends of a visible minority ethnic person, lesbian or refugee may be victimised because of their association. In some cases the perpetrator’s perception may be wrong. This can result in a person entirely unconnected with the hate motivation becoming a victim. In reality, anyone can become a victim of hate crime.”

21. In March 2005 • the Home Office Police Standards Unit published and issued to police forces across the country ‘Hate Crime: Delivering a Quality Service’. One of the first things the guidance seeks to do is to provide definitional clarity and this is done by explaining the distinction between a hate incident and a hate crime. A hate incident is defined as: • “Any incident which may or may not constitute a criminal offence, which is perceived by the victim or any other person, as being motivated by prejudice or

22. A hate crime is defined as: • “Any hate incident, which constitutes a criminal offence, perceived by the victim or any other person, as being motivated by prejudice or hate.”

23. The need to avoid confusion over definition • This position is supported by the CPS who state in their Code for Crown Prosecutors that “Not all cases meeting the definition of a racist or religious incident will necessarily have sufficient evidence to meet the evidential test required by the Code.” • Haringey’s definition of hate crime, which includes reference to ‘age and disability discrimination’ is misleading as whilst intimidation targeted at victims because of their age and disability may well be treated by the police as a crime – age and disability discrimination clearly would not be. It is not helpful for different partnership members to work with different definitions of hate crime.

24. Hate Crime and its Impact: The potential impact of hate crime is threefold, at victim level, at secondary level and at community level. • Research has shown that the effect of being a victim of hate crime is profound. Victims may suffer deep personal trauma and there is often little possibility of respite from the feeling of being victimised. Some victims report increased feelings of vulnerability and questioning of their identity. Being attacked for reasons of hate appears to be more difficult to recover from than being the victim of a crime not motivated by prejudice. Victims may require high levels of support from both the statutory and voluntary sectors. If such support is not available or if it is perceived that hate crime is not treated as seriously as other crimes, victims are likely to withdraw into themselves and further compound their sense of isolation. This can in turn lead to feelings of being estranged or separate from their community as well as feelings of betrayal. Once this has occurred it is very difficult for agencies to turn this around and re-establish the victim’s trust.

25. Secondary impact • How the statutory and voluntary organisations treat victims of hate crime has a profound effect on their ability to recover from such experiences. This is known as the ‘secondary impact.’ Insensitivity by ‘officialdom’ is likely to leave the victim of hate crime feeling further marginalised and unsupported. If victims encounter prejudice and/or stereotypical responses to their situation this may well make recovery much less successful and the responses act to compound the original hurt. Professionals who exhibit biased attitudes may minimise the nature and effect of the crime, leading to no further action being taken or else trivialising the crime.

26. continued • Haringey is a borough of great diversity and this presents opportunities for racists and other prejudicial people to exploit. At one level increasing incidences of Stop and Search could lead to people feeling victimised by the statutory authorities. These people may well view themselves as victims when others do not. The media has a tendency to sensationalise and young Asians in particular may feel that they are being viewed as potential terrorists. In this climate other vulnerable groups may feel that they are being seen as a low priority as resources are targeted elsewhere. During the period in which we completed the research we were told by a participant in an LGBT focus group that when the presence of homophobic literature in a public place was reported to the council and to the police no action was taken to ensure its removal. This caused a great deal of distress.

27. Community Impact • Crimes of Hate committed against individuals will have a ‘ripple’ effect and will be felt by many members of the minority community. This can lead to an increased sense of isolation and vulnerability as news of hate crime incidents percolates through the community. Members of the community may well congregate in areas where they feel safe. Thus targeted vandalism, hate slogans and individual attacks will often have a disproportionate effect on individuals and the communities in which they live, raising the levels of distrust and fear.

28. continued • Therefore it is evident that there is need to gain and maintain the trust of communities vulnerable to hate crime, which goes beyond the needs of individuals. The impact of this type of crime is often disproportionate to the nature of the offence committed as feelings of vulnerability, of being listened to, of being understood, is more complex than simple notions of being a victim. It is about being seen and respected as an important and integrated part of the community. This requires regular dialogue and exchange to learn about what is happening within and to the community and to correct any feelings of injustice before they become serious. It is essential that no assumptions are made about knowledge of resources and avenues of communication and that the concept of hate crime is explained and support available is reinforced on a regular basis.

29. continued • There are many varied minority and vulnerable communities present in Haringey. All of these need support and encouragement. However despite the oppression they experience certain groups are intolerant of others and this makes the job of overcoming hate crime more difficult. We have been told of religious groups who are very intolerant of LGBT communities and of intolerance between different minority ethnic groups. There is therefore a need to enhance the sense of community between groups so that experiences of prejudice can be seen as a common problem. This is not just a black and white issue but has many complexities to it. We have been impressed with the foundations that have been laid, for example the Safer Schools Project, and the many organisations set up and funded to help a number of minority ethnic groups.

30. Research carried out by Middlesex University • Consider and contextualise the London borough of Haringey and its resident population. • Identify reporting patterns of hate crime in Haringey during the audit period and over 2004/05. • Analyse hate crime in Haringey in contrast to other London boroughs. • Obtain public perceptions regarding hate crime from focus groups held within the borough, including gauging levels of understanding of the term and its definition amongst Haringey’s resident population and hard to reach groups as well as assessing fear of crime and repeat victimisation in relation to hate crime. • Analyse commentaries, perceptions and data regarding hate crime in Haringey in order to identify successes, failures, problems and emerging issues (e.g. barriers to reporting). • Evidence the under reporting of hate crime in Haringey and make recommendations accordingly.

31. The study was undertaken using both qualitative and quantitative methods • Data obtained from Haringey Council and the Metropolitan Police regarding the nature and extent of hate crime in the borough was gathered and analysed. • Key groups in the borough were identified and contacted. • Researchers identified key personnel within the borough and established contact with staff in both the statutory and voluntary sector. Interviews were then undertaken. • Focus groups were arranged and a large number of people were invited to attend. • A case study was undertaken with a travelling family. • Gaps in current service provision were identified. • Mechanisms for encouraging local communities and individuals to report hate crime were identified. • A workshop day at one school with year 8 students was planned and facilitated in conjunction with the School Head to examine hate crime attitudes in the context of young people. A questionnaire was designed and the responses analysed.

32. Quantitative research findings: • The research team encountered a number of difficulties when collecting police data for the evaluation as two different data sets contained a number of significant differences, therefore suggesting it was inconsistent and unreliable. For example, the CRIS data obtained for the research shows that between April 2002 and March 2003 there were 352 racial incidents in Haringey. In contrast, Met Stats data shows a total of 398 for the same 12 month period. Similarly, CRIS data shows that between April 2003 and March 2004 there were 251 racial incidents in Haringey. In contrast, Met Stats shows a total of 311. • Subsequently, the research team attempted to ascertain which CRIS flags are used when Met Stats are compiled for both race hate and homophobic incidents and offences.

33. Middlesex University Findings • Individuals and groups spoken to within the borough are unaware of the Council definition of hate crime. • There is a need to agree on a common definition of hate crime within the borough that is not misleading.

34. Defining Hate Crime • The Safer Haringey Partnership has adopted the following definition: • Hate crime is any behaviour (verbal or physical) that is motivated by hatred of another person because of a particular characteristic of that person.

35. Knowledge of reporting hate crime • We found a lack of knowledge about how and where to report hate crime. This can lead to a lack of optimism that reporting these crimes will lead to change.

36. Updating the Council website • At the time of undertaking the research the website was not user friendly and did not contain contact numbers or lists of agencies that support victims of hate crime.

37. Low expectations for change • In our communications with different groups in the community there was a low level of belief that if incidents of hate crime were reported to the council or police that an acceptable response would result.

38. Working in schools • Homophobia emerged as an issue in a training day organised on hate crime in a secondary school. • Homophobia was also reported in an LGBT focus group. • There is a need for the council and the police to make it clear that they will not tolerate such discrimination.

39. Working in partnership • We recommend closer working and communication between the various agencies and the police to promote joined up working within the partnership.

40. Reporting Centres in the borough • Comment was made to the research team that police stations were not necessarily the best places to report hate crime. We recommend that the Council consider developing third party reporting centres where members of the community will feel safe to come forward and report hate crimes.

41. Finally… • We thanked members of the community, council staff and others that we spoke to for their openness and willingness to discuss hate crime issues. • This was a very productive project to have worked on and we have appreciated the support and commitment from all concerned.