B1475 – Gender Hate Crimes Bill 2019

Watch
This discussion is closed.
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#1
B1475 – Gender Hate Crimes Bill 2019, TSR Labour Party
A
BILL
TO

To make provision for the law on aggravated offences to also cover gender; to set out appropriate sanctions in law for the breach of said offences; and for connected purposes.


BE IT ENACTED by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—

PART 1

CRIMINAL LAW

Gender-based hate crimes: England and Wales

1: Meaning of aggravated
(1) An offence is aggravated, for the purposes of sections 2 to 5 of this Act, if—
(a) at the time of committing the offence, or before or after, the offender demonstrates, towards the victim, hostility based on their gender; or,
(b) the offender is motivated, either wholly or partly, by hostility towards the victim's gender.

2: Aggravated assaults
(1) A person is guilty of an offence under this section if he commits—
(a) an assault or battery; or,
(b) an offence under section 47 of the 1861 Act; or,
(c) an offence under sections 18 or 20 of the 1861 Act.
which is aggravated for the purposes of this section.
(2) A person guilty of an offence falling within subsection (1)(a) above shall be liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory limit, or to both;
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine, or to both.
(3) A person guilty of an offence falling within subsection (1)(b) or (c) above shall be liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both;
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years or to a fine, or to both.

3: Aggravated criminal damage
(1) A person is guilty of an offence under this section if he commits an offence under section 1(1) of the1971 Act which is aggravated for the purposes of this section.
(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both;
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years or to a fine, or to both.
(3) For the purposes of this section, section 1(1)(a) above shall have effect as if the person to whom the property belongs or is treated as belonging for the purposes of that Act were the victim of the offence.

4: Aggravated public order offences
(1) A person is guilty of an offence under this section if he commits—
(a) an offence under section 4 of the 1986 Act;
(b) an offence under section 4A of the 1986 Act; or,
(c) an offence under section 5 of the 1986 Act,
which is aggravated for the purposes of this section.
(2) A person guilty of an offence falling within subsection (1)(a) or (b) above shall be liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both;
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine, or to both.
(3) A person guilty of an offence falling within subsection (1)(c) above shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.
(4) If, a person charged with an offence falling within subsection (1)(a) or (b), the jury find him not guilty of the offence charged, they may find him guilty of the basic offence mentioned in that provision.
(5) For the purposes of subsection (1)(c) above, section 1(1)(a) above shall have effect as if the person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress were the victim of the offence.

5: Aggravated harassment etc.
(1) A person is guilty of an offence under this section if he commits—
(a) an offence under section 2 or 2A of the 1998 Act; or,
(b) an offence under section 4 or 4A of the 19998 Act.
which is aggravated for the purposes of this section.
(2) A person guilty of an offence falling within subsection 1(a) above shall liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both;
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine, or to both.
(3) A person guilty of an offence falling within subsection (1)(b) above shall be liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both;
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years or to a fine, or to both.
(4) If, a person charged with an offence falling within subsection (1)(a), the jury find him not guilty of the offence charged, they may find him guilty of either basic offence mentioned in that provision.
(5) If, a person charged with an offence falling within subsection (1)(b) above, the jury find him not guilty of the offence charged, they may find him guilty of an offence falling within subsection (1)(a).

6: Interpretations
(1) For the purposes of this Act—
(a) "the 1861 Act" shall mean the Offences against the Person Act 1861;
(b) "the 1971 Act" shall mean the Criminal Damage Act 1971;
(c) "the 1986 Act" shall mean the Public Order Act 1986;
(d) "the 1998 Act" shall mean the Protection from Harassment Act 1998.

PART 2

SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT

6: Short Title
(1) This Act may be cited as the Gender Hate Crimes Act 2019.

7: Commencement
(1) This Act shall extend to England and Wales.

8: Extent
(1) This Act shall come into force upon Royal Assent.
0
ns_2
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#2
Report 1 year ago
#2
Well, some notes would be good to start...
0
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#3
Report 1 year ago
#3
lolno - the lack of notes for one is appalling, for two I disagree with the entire principle of hate crimes to begin with.
0
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#4
Report 1 year ago
#4
No notes? Ok then...
0
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#5
Report 1 year ago
#5
Interesting that s47, s18 and s20 OAPA 1861 offences were treated as the same with regards to sentence maximums. I cannot see a justification for this as the degree of harm inflicted and level of intention involved in these three offences is rather different... I would like to know why this decision was made.

Additionally, the Protection from Harassment Act is from 1997, not 1998.

I must say that I appreciate the equality shown here by not just targeting misogyny, but also misandry; however I am not necessarily in favour and I agree that some notes would have been nice so I could better unpick this. I am familiar with certain elements discussed but not all, and a rationale would have been good to see.
0
Mr T 999
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#6
Report 1 year ago
#6
No idea what this bill does. If you are going to mention acts it best to link them in the notes which happened to be missing. :erm:
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#7
Report 1 year ago
#7
Is this not covered by the equality act? If not why not amend it?
0
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#8
Report 1 year ago
#8
(Original post by Aph)
Is this not covered by the equality act? If not why not amend it?
It is not currently covered by that, no. That would not be the relevant statute to amend anyway. The relevant statutory provisions covering hate crimes at present are sections 28-32 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and sections 145 and 146 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
0
Joep95
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#9
Report 1 year ago
#9
(Original post by ns_2)
Well, some notes would be good to start...
(Original post by Connor27)
lolno - the lack of notes for one is appalling, for two I disagree with the entire principle of hate crimes to begin with.
(Original post by Andrew97)
No notes? Ok then...
(Original post by Mr T 999)
No idea what this bill does. If you are going to mention acts it best to link them in the notes which happened to be missing. :erm:
Do you lot all need your hands held to debate an issue?

Isn't the point of the mhoc to debate bills? If someone wrote a great bill but crap notes would you vote/debate against it based on the notes rather than it being a great bill?
0
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#10
Report 1 year ago
#10
(Original post by Joep95)
Do you lot all need your hands held to debate an issue?

Isn't the point of the mhoc to debate bills? If someone wrote a great bill but crap notes would you vote/debate against it based on the notes rather than it being a great bill?
I think the point is that they don't feel they know enough to comment properly.
0
Saunders16
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#11
Report 1 year ago
#11
(Original post by CatusStarbright)
I think the point is that they don't feel they know enough to comment properly.
I'll tag in keepholtingon who wrote this.

It isn't too hard to understand though, this puts gender on the same level as other hate crimes. That doesn't really require notes although if there are any areas in which people have concerns, I am sure he will be willing to answer.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#12
Report 1 year ago
#12
No notes?
Using parts even more unnecessarily than ns?
A generally poor idea?

Yeah, how about no?
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#13
Report 1 year ago
#13
(Original post by Saunders16)
I'll tag in keepholtingon who wrote this.

It isn't too hard to understand though, this puts gender on the same level as other hate crimes. That doesn't really require notes although if there are any areas in which people have concerns, I am sure he will be willing to answer.
Whereas other "hate crimes" should be put on the same level as gender
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#14
Report 1 year ago
#14
(Original post by Joep95)
Do you lot all need your hands held to debate an issue?

Isn't the point of the mhoc to debate bills? If someone wrote a great bill but crap notes would you vote/debate against it based on the notes rather than it being a great bill?
Have you not yet learnt that the quality of a bill is largely irrelevant in division and a bill that does nothing or is even actively harmful due to how it is written (or just the application of the idea being dumb, or it being something that is already the case IRL) will pass if people like the idea behind it?
0
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#15
Report 1 year ago
#15
(Original post by Saunders16)
I'll tag in keepholtingon who wrote this.

It isn't too hard to understand though, this puts gender on the same level as other hate crimes. That doesn't really require notes although if there are any areas in which people have concerns, I am sure he will be willing to answer.
The world of hate crimes is an interesting one and additionally I believe at present there are two sort of tiers when it comes to dealing with them. I cannot remember the specifics but some of the five current strands are treated slightly differently to the others.

I hope he responds to my points.
0
LeapingLucy
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#16
Report 1 year ago
#16
If the attacker demonstrates hostility towards their victim based on gender during the attack, then I'm fine with that being a hate crime.

I'm just slightly uneasy with the language used in the act - it says 'before or after' as well as during. How long before are we talking about? If someone posted something misogynist on Facebook, and then attacked a woman three months later, would that be treated as sufficient evidence of hostility towards the victim's gender & thus classified as a hate crime?

It just seems to me to be verging slightly into the realm of thought crime, with the state trying to guess what was in someone's mind while they were doing something.
0
Saunders16
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#17
Report 1 year ago
#17
The author has written a second reading and when I get the chance I will write notes for those of you who struggle with debating without help, so stay tuned.
0
OG-1
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#18
Report 1 year ago
#18
What is the difference between a crime and a hate crime?
0
Lord Vitiate
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#19
Report 1 year ago
#19
(Original post by OG-1)
What is the difference between a crime and a hate crime?
The line I have an overwhelming urge to use is this: all hate crimes are crimes, but not all crimes are hate crimes. The acts committed under this bill are already illegal. However, they can be aggravated (made worse) when they are committed out of hate of a particular characteristic, i.e. one's gender.
0
Saunders16
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#20
Report 1 year ago
#20
(Original post by OG-1)
What is the difference between a crime and a hate crime?
A hate crime is a crime committed due to somebody's backgrounds. The purpose of this bill is to move forward from a time when such crimes were widespread due to the motivation not being taken to account in court because the legislation was not in place to do so.

This is currently done in crimes motivated by racial group or religious group (Crime and Disorder Act 1998) and sexual orientation or disability (Criminal Justice Act 2003). Making crime based on gender a hate crime has been an idea suggested by people in both main parties in real life, but it has not found the numbers it needs perhaps due to a movement against hate crime existing at all in our legal system.

(Original post by LeapingLucy)
If the attacker demonstrates hostility towards their victim based on gender during the attack, then I'm fine with that being a hate crime.

I'm just slightly uneasy with the language used in the act - it says 'before or after' as well as during. How long before are we talking about? If someone posted something misogynist on Facebook, and then attacked a woman three months later, would that be treated as sufficient evidence of hostility towards the victim's gender & thus classified as a hate crime?

It just seems to me to be verging slightly into the realm of thought crime, with the state trying to guess what was in someone's mind while they were doing something.
I believe this is the incorrect interpretation of the bill, although I understand your concern. The bill states that if 'the offender demonstrates, towards the victim, hostility based on their gender', it will be classified as a hate crime. 'Towards the victim' highlights that it must be a direct act of misogyny/misandry directed at the victim within a reasonable time before or after the crime to be considered as serious evidence of a hate crime by a court.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Current uni students - are you thinking of dropping out of university?

Yes, I'm seriously considering dropping out (176)
14.56%
I'm not sure (56)
4.63%
No, I'm going to stick it out for now (354)
29.28%
I have already dropped out (35)
2.89%
I'm not a current university student (588)
48.64%

Watched Threads

View All