Recent Developments in,and Present Position of,Incitement to Racial Hatred

The ultimate civil sanction given by the first Act on this topic (Race Relations Act 1965) was for the Race Relations Board to refer a case of discrimination to the Attorney-General, who had to decide whether to apply for an injunction. This unsatisfactory system (during the first two years of the Board's life only 4 cases were referred to the Attorney-General, according to the Board's Report 1967–68) had been modified in 1968. See now the Race Relations Act, 1976.

A petition signed by 400,000 people supported the Incitement provision. The supporters included The Observer and The Guardian. But The Times and The Spectator opposed the provision. Quintin Hogg (now Lord Hailsham) warmly welcomed S.6.

This was another extension in incitement crimes, e.g. incitement of disaffection among armed forces; among police; Aliens to promote industrial disturbance etc.

See Hepple , “Race Relations Act 1965” (1966) 29 MLR 306, Dickey , “Race Formula of the Race Relations Act” (1974) Juridical Rev. 282.

Possibly the first, and probably the last, occasion when Sedition for incitement to violence (against the Jews) was unsuccessfully invoked was in R. v. Caunt, The Times, 18th November, 1947. See also An Editor on Trial [1947].

Section 5; see Williams , “Racial Hatred and Public Order” [1966] Crim. Law Rev 320; cf Jordan v. Burgoyne [1963] 2 QB 744.

For example R. v. Leese (1936) The Times, 22nd September, 1936. However this crime was abolished by R. v. Withers [1974] 3 All ER 984 (see Khan Gillance (1975) PR 164; Dickey , “English Law and Incitement to Racial Hatred” (1968) 9 Race 311.

See R. v. Osborne (1732) 2 Swan 503n.

For example: R. v. Taylor (1965) 109 SJ 311.

For example: R. v. Hunt, The Times, 16th September, 1958. This prosecution was brought after the notorious Notting Hill riots in 1958 when “nigger-hunting” youths who had assaulted the blacks were each sentenced to 4 years' imprisonment. Salmon J. saying, “Everyone irrespective of the colour of their skin, is entitled to walk through our streets in peace, with their heads erect, and free from fear”.

See for further elaboration Dickey Race , op. cit.

Hepple , Race, Jobs and the Law (1970), 148–9.

House of Common's Parl. Deb. (March 24, 1871) Vol. 205, Cols. 274–5.

“The admission that there might be disrimination is a blot on our society. We should not refuse to face the facts; sooner they are tackled, the sooner they will be righted”. 111 SJ 625. “It is a cardinal principle of our law that [persons of all races] shall not suffer any disability or prejudice by reason of their race and shall have equal freedom under the law” (Lord Denning, 1949).

Williams , op. cit.

The then Home Secretary Sir Frank Soskie; 711 HC Parl. Deb. Col. 926; see also the P.E.P. Report ( Street Prof. , 1967, after which the 1968 Act was passed).

Lord Stonham, House of Lords, 268, Parl. Deb . Cols. 1010–1014. See also Dickey , “Race Formula of the Race Relations Act”, op. cit.

The section “historically was a direct result of the anti-sematic activities of the fifties and sixties,” Fowler Norman , The Times, (1st September, 1969).

In eleven years, 19 prosecution took place, out of which 12 persons were convicted, 1 conviction was quashed on appeal (913 HC Parl. Deb. Col. 582–3). During the first two years of the life of the section 14 persons were prosecuted HC 751 Parl. Deb. Col. 1340–41). During the next 18 months only 1 person was prosecuted. During the first 3i years, 103 alleged offences had been investigated, but only 15 prosecutions took place (786 HC Parl. Deb.).

[1967] 1 All ER 486.

The Solicitors' Journal had this to say in a comment on the case: “There is an obvious dilemma here. Freedom of speech and thought must be respected, even where the views are repugnant to the majority, and perhaps more especially then. On the other hand, the evil at which the RRA is aimed should be curbed. The recent case revealing a loophole in the law. … It can never be satisfactory to have laws which, simply because of their wording, are clearly being evaded by those intended to be covered. Penal Acts must be interpreted strictly but holes in them should be plugged promptly by amending legislation”. 111 SJ 2.

See Partington , “Race Relations Act 1965: A Too Restricted View” (1967) Crim. Law Rev. 497 for a scathing criticism of this decision.

[1967] Crim. Law. Rev. 483.

Leader of the Nationalist Socialist Movement; the same gentleman as in Jordan v. Burgoyne (see note 6 supra).

The Times, 26th January, 1967 (The trial judge was Philimore J.)

(1967) 9 J.P. Supp 48

The Evening Sentinal (Hanley) 23rd May, 1967.

Leek Magistrates Court, May, 1967.

Also known as Michael de Freitas, and Michael X. He was in the news later as well in connection with a murder charge in the West Indies.

BBC later apologised for broadcasting Mr Carmichael's Speech, The Daily Mail, 23rd December, 1967.

The Times , 10th November, 1967; R. v. Malik (1967) 1 All ER 582.

His appeal was rejected by the Court of Appeal. See The Times, 22nd December, 1967; see also MacInnes , New Society, 28th December, 1967.

The Times, 28th July, 1967.

This proved Home Secretary's point that anti-white incitement would also be curbed. The Times, 25th July, 1967.

The Times, 30th November, 1967.

The Times, 29th March, 1968.

The Times, 1st May, 1968.

The Guardian, 29th September, 1972.

The Yorkshire Evening Post, 14th September, 1972.

The Yorkshire Post, 12th December and 15th December, 1972.

The Times, 1st May, 1968.

Why this particular issue was chosen for prosecution no one knowns. It was “on its face relatively innocuous when compared with earlier issues of the same broadsheet and represented a new brand of sophisticated racialism”. Longaker , “The Race Relations Act: An Evaluation of the Incitement Provisions”, XI Race 125.

It was suggested at the time that the government intended to lose the case for various tactical and political reasons.

Birdsell, quoted by Longaker op. cit.

See Partington , op. cit.

The Times, Editorial, 20th December, 1966.

For example, The Times, 29th April, 1969.

Statement by Sir Elwyn-Jones, the then Attorney-General in June, 1969.

Sandys Mr , The Times , 11th August, 1967; Powell Mr (see Speeches 1968 e.g. p. 94 — his speech “river Tiber foaming with much blood”). Sir Richard Dobson has many good defences if there is any danger of his prosecution!.

Per Lord Stonham, HL 275 Parl. Deb. Col. 1253–54.

Longaker , op. cit. p. 152; see also Dickey , “English Law and Race Defamation”, XIV New York Law Forum; Dickey , “Prosecutions Under the Race Relations Act 1965, S.6” (1968) Crim. L.R. 489.

Red Lion Square Report, Para. 125.

Cmnd 6234 (1975).

Section 5A (1).

914 HC Deb. Col. 1947.

Sub Section 6.

[1972] AC 342.

Section 5A (2).

Section 5A (3).

Section 5A (6).

See note 20 supra.

This is especially so after cases like Docker's Labour Club and Institute Ltd. v. Race Relations Board HL (1974) 3 All ER 529 (on a different section but the same phrase).

373 HL Deb. Col. 238.

Longaker , op. cit., at p. 143.

The Times, 5th January and 7th January, 1978.