Verdict not an endorsement of BNP’s politics

Gary Slapper | Friday, 10 November 2006 Source: The Times

It is acutely difficult to balance our democratic right to freedom of speech against the requirement of a peaceful civilisation that destructive menace and violence is not generated by hate-mongers. The trial of Nick Griffin, the BNP leader, was a test of that balance.

The jury today acquitted Mr Griffin on all charges of inciting racial hatred, but that should not be taken as an endorsement of his views. As Judge Norman Jones, QC, said in his balanced summation: "This case is not about whether the political beliefs of the BNP are right or wrong. It's not about whether assertions made about Islam are right or wrong. Those are issues to be debated in different arenas."

All the jury had been asked to decide was whether Mr Griffin had committed the crimes alleged under the Public Order Act 1986. According to the law, a person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if:

(1) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred; or

(2) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby

It is a serious charge, carrying a sentence of imprisonment of up to two years or a fine or both if convicted in the Crown Court, and a prison sentence of up to six months or a fine if convicted in a magistrates' court.

Mr Griffin's lawyers argued that because his anti-Muslim comments were made at a private meeting he could not have been attempting to stir up public hatred. That does not necessarily matter: an offence can be committed in public or in private. Private meetings in a dwelling, though, are protected if no-one outside hears the meeting.

What the offence hinges on is whether or not Mr Griffin intended for his comments to stir up hatred for people based on their colour, race, nationality or ethnic or national origins. Even if he did not have that intention, though, he could have been convicted if racial hatred was likely to be stirred up by what he said in the circumstance of the meeting.

The jury has decided no more or less than that the precise words spoken, in the precise context in which they were spoken, did not amount to the crimes charged. That is all. The verdict says nothing about what the jury thought about the sense or values of the views expressed.

Gary Slapper is a Professor of Law at the Open University and a columnist for Times Online Law