*/
The aftermath of riots in Hull © Ioannis Alexopoulos/LNP/Shutterstock
Britain needs to get over its shameful denial of racism, call it what it is and start to effectively deal with the problem, says Vithyah Chelvam
I am being a typical criminal barrister and writing this on my train journey into court. Every time the door opens, my heart stops a little. Who is getting on? Have they taken part in the race riots? Will they hurt me? I am a proud British-Tamil woman. Now, I am in fear due to the colour of my skin. We’ve all seen the horrific racial attacks over the weekend. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has called this ‘far-right thuggery’. I’m not so sure that is enough. Right-wing extremism has been the UK government’s blind spot for too long. And now, ethnic minorities are facing the life-threatening repercussions of that. As I write, around 400 people have been arrested in this week of chaos.
Having glimpsed through the news at how many have engaged in the disorder, I cannot agree that what we are seeing really is the ‘full force of the law’ as promised by the Prime Minister. I do not know if all those arrested will be charged but, being so junior in my career, I wouldn’t be surprised if I will be working on those court appearances in the very near future. Yesterday, the Director of Public Prosecutions, Stephen Parkinson, said that the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) will consider the most severe possible criminal charges, including terrorism. This is promising, but it will need to be consistent and properly actioned.
On defining ‘extremism’, the ‘Prevent’ programme has been counterintuitive, unhelpful and harmful. Since the 2011 revised Prevent strategy, the government has defined extremism as ‘vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs. We also include in our definition of extremism calls for the death of members of [British] armed forces, whether in this country or overseas’.
It is my view that this definition of ‘extremism’ is so vague and broad that it is rendered largely meaningless. There is no definition of ‘fundamental British values’ which enhances the right-wing terrorism blind spot and plays right into their hands. Those who took part in the violence last week will no doubt say that ‘British values’ are exactly what they were fighting for.
‘Rioters’; ‘far-right activists’; ‘anti-immigration protestors’: these are just a few of the terms that I have seen used across the media. It just takes one internet search of the alleged architects of this right-wing violence to reveal the search-engine description ‘activist’ at the very top of the results page. In my view, the conduct we have seen over the last week is life-threatening, racist and violent terrorism. These actions breed fear. Calling it anything less, simply reinforces their narrative.
England and Wales define terrorism under s 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000. This includes the actions of terrorism as the use or threat of serious violence against a person; serious damage to property; endangering a person’s life; creating serious risk to the health and safety of the public (or a section of the public); and action designed to seriously interfere or seriously disrupt an electronic system. Additionally, the Act says that such actions are designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public. The use or threat must also be for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial, or ideological cause.
We saw it all over the weekend: the use and threats of serious violence against people and property. Homes vandalised; street beatings; stabbings; mosques under siege; and I am devastated to say that the list goes on. I watched a viral video of a large mob of men reportedly dragging an Asian man (now clarified by Humberside Police to be Eastern European) out of a car in Hull, shouting racist slurs and smashing up the vehicle. Hotels housing asylum seekers are subject to arson attacks. Can you imagine fleeing a war, to then be locked inside a hotel room fearing for your life again?
More recently, immigration lawyers have been warned to take extra security measures and stay away from work due to risk of violence against them. In response to media reports of threats against immigration and asylum law firms and advice agencies, Chair of the Bar Sam Townend KC said: ‘These incidents of racist and Islamophobic violence and rioting are to be utterly deplored. This unrest is the context in which the criminal justice system must respond.
‘The Bar Council stands with the Law Society in its request to government asking that the threats against the legal profession are treated with the utmost seriousness...’
‘Intimidating’ the public, therefore, is an understatement. And cause is clear: promoting messages of hate-filled prejudice and encouraging the radicalisation of people motivated by race hate.
This leads me to the charges. From what I have seen (disclaimer: I have not seen any case individually in detail), some have been charged with ‘violent disorder’. Violent disorder (s 2, Public Order Act 1986) has a maximum of 5 years’ custody, with sentences that range from community orders to 4 years 6 months’ custody. From the sentences that have already been handed down in the last week, I have seen one defendant receiving 2 months’ imprisonment for criminal damage, and others receiving community orders (presumably all with first appearance credit). Today, a man was jailed for three years after pleading guilty to violent disorder. I am unsure how helpful such criminal sentences are in deterring future right-wing terrorism and whether they recognise the gravity of the problem. In order to prevent this from happening again, a deradicalisation approach needs to be given serious consideration too, which short sentences cannot afford.
Former head of counter-terrorism policing, Neil Basu has said the attempted arson attack on the Holiday Inn in Rotherham should be treated as an act of terrorism. And Lord Alex Carlile, former Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, suggested prosecutors should consider charging riot ringleaders with terrorism offences.
Lord Anderson, Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, speaking on BBC’s The World Tonight [from 20:50] agreed that some of the conduct we have seen meets the ‘extraordinarily broad’ definition of terrorism but urged caution about charging the overwhelming majority of rioters with terrorist offences as it could ‘raise the temperature’, pointing to alternative charging tools which keep the focus on the violent acts that were committed rather than the reasons for them which can be harder to prove.
It seems to me, however, that the emotional temperature has already been raised and denial of a terrorist element will only make it worse. Non-White people who commit similar crimes seem to be much more easily considered as terrorists.
However, sentencing is only part of the issue. By not calling or charging this as terrorism, I fear that we are only downplaying the very serious threat to Black and Brown lives. We are also misclassifying crimes, thus creating hindrance to effective counter-terrorism. If this had been seen as terrorist act, perhaps the police who had to deal with the attacks may just have been better equipped. They also might have taken the 48-hour notice they had of such ‘protests’ more seriously.
From an academic point of view, misclassifying these crimes has already created a problem. For instance, Professor Alex Schmid of the International Centre for Counter-Terrorism found that out of 4,458 empirically based peer-reviewed publications only a mere 0.6% related to domestic terrorism, a category under which right-wing terrorism was subsumed together with other forms of political violence over a long period (see Daniel Koehler, ‘Violence and Terrorism from the Far-Right: Policy Options to Counter an Elusive Threat’, International Centre for Counter-Terrorism, 2019, p.9). This means that there is a vital gap in valuable knowledge because we refuse to call the problem what it is in the first instance.
Wouldn’t words, actions and methodology to such terror have less effect if we just called it ‘terrorism’? Are we so blinded by the increased racial profiling of 9/11 that we are confusing terrorists with civilians and vice versa? The denial is deafening. And in law, this is first seen in the lack of terrorist charges.
What we need is a change of culture, more attention from the government and appropriate charging by the police and CPS. In my view, this is needed much more so than unsustainable and short-term fixes like 24-hour courts. Most of all, it seems to me that Britain needs to get over its shameful denial of racism, call it what it is and start to effectively deal with the problem.
Please note that this article represents the opinion of the author and does not necessarily reflect the view of any other member of Chambers.
I am being a typical criminal barrister and writing this on my train journey into court. Every time the door opens, my heart stops a little. Who is getting on? Have they taken part in the race riots? Will they hurt me? I am a proud British-Tamil woman. Now, I am in fear due to the colour of my skin. We’ve all seen the horrific racial attacks over the weekend. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has called this ‘far-right thuggery’. I’m not so sure that is enough. Right-wing extremism has been the UK government’s blind spot for too long. And now, ethnic minorities are facing the life-threatening repercussions of that. As I write, around 400 people have been arrested in this week of chaos.
Having glimpsed through the news at how many have engaged in the disorder, I cannot agree that what we are seeing really is the ‘full force of the law’ as promised by the Prime Minister. I do not know if all those arrested will be charged but, being so junior in my career, I wouldn’t be surprised if I will be working on those court appearances in the very near future. Yesterday, the Director of Public Prosecutions, Stephen Parkinson, said that the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) will consider the most severe possible criminal charges, including terrorism. This is promising, but it will need to be consistent and properly actioned.
On defining ‘extremism’, the ‘Prevent’ programme has been counterintuitive, unhelpful and harmful. Since the 2011 revised Prevent strategy, the government has defined extremism as ‘vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs. We also include in our definition of extremism calls for the death of members of [British] armed forces, whether in this country or overseas’.
It is my view that this definition of ‘extremism’ is so vague and broad that it is rendered largely meaningless. There is no definition of ‘fundamental British values’ which enhances the right-wing terrorism blind spot and plays right into their hands. Those who took part in the violence last week will no doubt say that ‘British values’ are exactly what they were fighting for.
‘Rioters’; ‘far-right activists’; ‘anti-immigration protestors’: these are just a few of the terms that I have seen used across the media. It just takes one internet search of the alleged architects of this right-wing violence to reveal the search-engine description ‘activist’ at the very top of the results page. In my view, the conduct we have seen over the last week is life-threatening, racist and violent terrorism. These actions breed fear. Calling it anything less, simply reinforces their narrative.
England and Wales define terrorism under s 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000. This includes the actions of terrorism as the use or threat of serious violence against a person; serious damage to property; endangering a person’s life; creating serious risk to the health and safety of the public (or a section of the public); and action designed to seriously interfere or seriously disrupt an electronic system. Additionally, the Act says that such actions are designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public. The use or threat must also be for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial, or ideological cause.
We saw it all over the weekend: the use and threats of serious violence against people and property. Homes vandalised; street beatings; stabbings; mosques under siege; and I am devastated to say that the list goes on. I watched a viral video of a large mob of men reportedly dragging an Asian man (now clarified by Humberside Police to be Eastern European) out of a car in Hull, shouting racist slurs and smashing up the vehicle. Hotels housing asylum seekers are subject to arson attacks. Can you imagine fleeing a war, to then be locked inside a hotel room fearing for your life again?
More recently, immigration lawyers have been warned to take extra security measures and stay away from work due to risk of violence against them. In response to media reports of threats against immigration and asylum law firms and advice agencies, Chair of the Bar Sam Townend KC said: ‘These incidents of racist and Islamophobic violence and rioting are to be utterly deplored. This unrest is the context in which the criminal justice system must respond.
‘The Bar Council stands with the Law Society in its request to government asking that the threats against the legal profession are treated with the utmost seriousness...’
‘Intimidating’ the public, therefore, is an understatement. And cause is clear: promoting messages of hate-filled prejudice and encouraging the radicalisation of people motivated by race hate.
This leads me to the charges. From what I have seen (disclaimer: I have not seen any case individually in detail), some have been charged with ‘violent disorder’. Violent disorder (s 2, Public Order Act 1986) has a maximum of 5 years’ custody, with sentences that range from community orders to 4 years 6 months’ custody. From the sentences that have already been handed down in the last week, I have seen one defendant receiving 2 months’ imprisonment for criminal damage, and others receiving community orders (presumably all with first appearance credit). Today, a man was jailed for three years after pleading guilty to violent disorder. I am unsure how helpful such criminal sentences are in deterring future right-wing terrorism and whether they recognise the gravity of the problem. In order to prevent this from happening again, a deradicalisation approach needs to be given serious consideration too, which short sentences cannot afford.
Former head of counter-terrorism policing, Neil Basu has said the attempted arson attack on the Holiday Inn in Rotherham should be treated as an act of terrorism. And Lord Alex Carlile, former Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, suggested prosecutors should consider charging riot ringleaders with terrorism offences.
Lord Anderson, Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, speaking on BBC’s The World Tonight [from 20:50] agreed that some of the conduct we have seen meets the ‘extraordinarily broad’ definition of terrorism but urged caution about charging the overwhelming majority of rioters with terrorist offences as it could ‘raise the temperature’, pointing to alternative charging tools which keep the focus on the violent acts that were committed rather than the reasons for them which can be harder to prove.
It seems to me, however, that the emotional temperature has already been raised and denial of a terrorist element will only make it worse. Non-White people who commit similar crimes seem to be much more easily considered as terrorists.
However, sentencing is only part of the issue. By not calling or charging this as terrorism, I fear that we are only downplaying the very serious threat to Black and Brown lives. We are also misclassifying crimes, thus creating hindrance to effective counter-terrorism. If this had been seen as terrorist act, perhaps the police who had to deal with the attacks may just have been better equipped. They also might have taken the 48-hour notice they had of such ‘protests’ more seriously.
From an academic point of view, misclassifying these crimes has already created a problem. For instance, Professor Alex Schmid of the International Centre for Counter-Terrorism found that out of 4,458 empirically based peer-reviewed publications only a mere 0.6% related to domestic terrorism, a category under which right-wing terrorism was subsumed together with other forms of political violence over a long period (see Daniel Koehler, ‘Violence and Terrorism from the Far-Right: Policy Options to Counter an Elusive Threat’, International Centre for Counter-Terrorism, 2019, p.9). This means that there is a vital gap in valuable knowledge because we refuse to call the problem what it is in the first instance.
Wouldn’t words, actions and methodology to such terror have less effect if we just called it ‘terrorism’? Are we so blinded by the increased racial profiling of 9/11 that we are confusing terrorists with civilians and vice versa? The denial is deafening. And in law, this is first seen in the lack of terrorist charges.
What we need is a change of culture, more attention from the government and appropriate charging by the police and CPS. In my view, this is needed much more so than unsustainable and short-term fixes like 24-hour courts. Most of all, it seems to me that Britain needs to get over its shameful denial of racism, call it what it is and start to effectively deal with the problem.
Please note that this article represents the opinion of the author and does not necessarily reflect the view of any other member of Chambers.
Britain needs to get over its shameful denial of racism, call it what it is and start to effectively deal with the problem, says Vithyah Chelvam
Chair of the Bar Sam Townend KC encourages colleagues to take a proper break over summer and highlights recent events and key activities for autumn
Casedo explains how to hit the ground running on your next case with a four-step plan to transform the way you work
Your future self will thank you, says Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth
In the first of a new series, Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth considers the fundamental need for financial protection
Unlocking your aged debt to fund your tax in one easy step. By Philip N Bristow
Possibly, but many barristers are glad he did…
Britain needs to get over its shameful denial of racism, call it what it is and start to effectively deal with the problem, says Vithyah Chelvam
Sir Geoffrey Vos, Master of the Rolls and Head of Civil Justice since January 2021, is well known for his passion for access to justice and all things digital. Perhaps less widely known is the driven personality and wanderlust that lies behind this, as Anthony Inglese CB discovers
Art, including music, should be protected as a fundamental form of freedom of expression and not used to unfairly implicate individuals, argues Ifẹ Thompson
Jasvir Singh trails this summer’s celebrations, open to all and with the theme ‘Free to Be Me’, by focusing on the diversity of South Asian heritage barristers and judges, and the trailblazers who led the way
Stephen Mason sets out how the legal presumption, which exposed widespread misunderstanding about the nature of computer failures and caused serious widespread injustice, came into effect