Queen’s Bench Divisional Court

Published April 9, 2008

Johnson v Director of Public Prosecutions

Threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour accompanied by hostility, based partly on the victim’s presumed membership of a racial group, was a sufficient evidential basis for a charge of a racially aggravated offence, even if that hostility was also based partly on the victim’s duties as a parking attendant.

The Queen’s Bench Divisional Court (Lord Justice Richards and Mrs Justice Swift) so held on February 26, 2008, when dismissing the appeal by way of case stated of Herald Johnson against the upholding on appeal at Sheffield Crown Court (Mr Recorder Bradshaw and justices) on March 12, 2007, of his conviction by Sheffield Justices of an offence under section 31 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 of a racially aggravated offence under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, by using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour within the sight or hearing of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.

LORD JUSTICE RICHARDS said that it had been reasonably open to the crown court to find that the appellant had demonstrated racial hostility.

Whether the words used in fact demonstrated racial hostility rather than hostility to parking attendants based on their job was a question of fact for the tribunal.

It did not matter if the hostility was based in part on race and in part towards parking attendants generally.

The effect of section 28(3) of the 1998 Act was that it was sufficient if the hostility was based in part on membership or presumed membership of a racial group.

Times Recommends

• Linklaters trounces rivals as UK's biggest firm
• Clifford Chance profits plunge 37 per cent
• Casual drinkers hit by spread of 'dry' zones