Agenda item

The Committee received a report of the Director of Legal and Democratic Services which provided background information in advance of the presentation from Inspector I Bowden, Durham Constabulary that gave an overview of hate crime (for copy see file of minutes).

Inspector I Bowden gave a detailed presentation that focused on hate crime and what it was.  He was part of a team that covered Durham and Darlington. He explained that the Safe Durham Partnership Strategy (SDP) 2024 – 2029 was approved on 26 June 2024 which identified three priorities:

·      Anti-social behaviour and crime which disrupts our communities

·      Hate crime and building community cohesion

·      Sexual violence and other violent crime

Inspector I Bowden clarified that the law recognised five types of hate crime based on:

·      Race

·      Religion

·      Disability

·      Sexual Orientation

·      Transgender Identity

Any crime could be prosecuted as a hate crime if someone had demonstrated hostility or be motivated by hostility. Inspector I Bowden added that people may be subject to more than one type of hate crime.  He added that in some situations things may not be obvious but could be deciphered as hate crime such as through a pattern of behaviour. Examples of actions that were classed as hate crime could include the following:

·      Physical assault

·      Verbal abuse

·      Criminal damage to property or possession

·      Harassment

·      Murder

·      Sexual assault

·      Theft/burglary

Inspector I Bowden mentioned that anyone could report a hate crime either online, through 101 or 999 if it was an emergency. He noted that not all victims reported hate crime to the police due to their vulnerabilities or confidence to do so if they had had a bad experience or believed the portrayal of the police by the media.  He advised that there were many support groups available that could help and gave examples of Crime Stoppers, TellMAMA for the Muslim community and CST for the Jewish community.

The Joint Hate Crime Action (JHCA) Group worked in partnership to agree and implement a co-ordinated approach to issues associated with hate crime.  The work had stalled over the last few years due to covid but now was to be reinstated with the group looking to agree its terms of reference to move forward. He highlighted statistics on the number of hate crimes recorded, resolved and not resolved – closed. He added that there was a 25.2% success rate in resolving hate crime. However as there was no reporting nationally to use as a comparative it was unclear if this figure was good or bad.   There was an expectation that the statistics for August would be high.  There were various reasons for hate crime that resulted in public order offences, violence without injury, language and physical injury and criminal damage. He noted that a court could impose a tougher sentence on the offender under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and the Criminal Justice Act 2003 but for lesser crimes community resolutions were used without going to court.

Councillor D Boyes asked if there were any degrees of prioritisation with reported hate crime. He felt that some were worse than others. He was saddened by what had happened online which had encouraged people to attack mosques following the murder of three young girls in Southport, Merseyside in July.

Inspector I Bowden responded that the overarching goal was to treat every reported case the same, much depended on how the victim perceived it to be a hate crime.  The severity of the case depended on the findings of the investigation and the crown prosecution service (CPS) who made the decision to press charges.  The objective was to make a victim feel safe and have the confidence to report the incident to the police.

Superintendent N Bickford added that police applied a professional judgement that focussed on the most harmful crimes. He added that it was not helped when there was political discourse on how to deal with issues like immigration.  

Councillor R Crute asked how hate crime was defined as what looked to be alright on eg Facebook, at first glance in relation to immigration may well be hate crime.  He gave an example of people posting negative things on-line that stated immigrants were being housed in East Durham who claimed benefits to provoke a response when the allegations were untrue. These posts generated hostile comments and were provocative within a community and relied on people’s fears.  He asked where this fell within hate crime regarding intent.

Inspector I Bowden was aware that what happened through August regarding online posts to rile the community was horrendous but intent was difficult to prove.  This was generally the case within hate crimes and the only way to prove intent was by the act. Unfortunately the incidents were monitored to see how they developed before action could be taken as to whether the intent was to stir up hate or if it was just someone’s opinion.

Councillor R Crute asked if there were certain places on social media where hate crime could be reported. It was commented that Facebook often responded to say posts did not breach their guidelines.

Inspector I Bowden noted that any action that was perceived to be hate crime should be reported so it could be recorded and investigated.  He confirmed that police officers found hate crime frustrating as intent was difficult to prove.  

Councillor E Mavin mentioned that he had been abused on Facebook which was so bad he had to report it to the police.  The culprit was asked to take the comments down but no further action could be taken as he had not been named in the posts even though it was obvious they were targeted at him. 

Councillor J Miller thanked the Inspector for the presentation.  He was interested in the figures for August for hate crime.  He stated that Front Street, Wheatley Hill in his division was the worst affected area in Durham for hate crime.  

Inspector I Bowden declared that there were always rumblings of hate crime all the time but had been worse in August.  He acknowledged that there was a delay in data but it was being processed and would be available in late September.  He agreed to bring a short report and summary back to committee and would circulate the data when available.

Councillor J Charlton questioned some disparities with the figures within the report and queried why that was. 

Superintendent N Bickford explained that the disparity was due to the retention rate of data with some cases being resolved straight away but others taking more time and this was reflected in the data.  He gave an example of fraud cases which may take years to resolve but were still shown in the figures.

Resolved:

That the report and presentation be noted.