Prosecuting rap: what does the case law tell us?

This article explores the admissibility and use of rap music as evidence in English criminal trials. It presents findings from an analysis of over thirty appeal cases. As well as unpacking the link between rap, race and gangs that is prevalent in these cases, the article challenges the categorisation of rap as ‘bad character evidence’, and critiques the way in which questions of relevance and prejudicial effect have been addressed by the courts. In particular, when making admissibility decisions, the courts appear to give little consideration to the cultural context, artistic conventions or social influences within the rap music genre, or the racialised nature of rap evidence. It is argued that, if rap is to be admissible evidence, a much more rigorous and informed approach is required

Hate crime and the legal process: options for law reform

Hate crime is a priority area for the Government and policymakers. Among other initiatives to tackle and respond to hate crime, the Government published hate crime ‘action plans’ in 2012 and 2016, the Law Commission completed a project on hate crime legislation in 2014, and, in 2017, the Crown Prosecution Service published new public statements on how it prosecutes hate crime. Public awareness of hate crime has also grown, particularly since the 2016 EU referendum which led to a huge spike in the number of hate crimes reported to the police. More generally, following the referendum, there have been reports of increased levels of anxiety and fear among minority groups and marginalised communities. But what happens when a hate crime is reported to the police? How effectively does the law (and legal professionals) respond to allegations of hate crime? This Briefing Paper presents findings from a 24-month empirical study on the operation of hate crime legislation. These findings indicate that significant reform is necessary to ensure justice for both victims and defendants in hate crime cases

The interpretation and application of the right to effective participation

Defendants have long held rights to participate in their criminal trials, including the right to effective participation. However, the precise meaning and scope of this right is unclear, and in practice the extent to which defendants can be said to participate effectively in criminal proceedings is often limited. This article examines the definition and uncertain scope of the right to effective participation. It also examines the narrow way in which the right has been applied by the courts, including a judicial willingness to reject medical opinion and an optimistic approach towards the effectiveness of special measures. It argues that there is a need for a clearer and more comprehensive definition of ‘effective participation’ and a more rigorous and medicalised approach to determining whether defendants can participate effectively, to ensure compliance with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and create legal certainty

Understanding the barriers to defendant participation in criminal proceedings in England and Wales

Over the past two decades, there have been significant legal developments aimed at securing and enhancing the participation of vulnerable witnesses in criminal trials. Yet, there remains relatively little regard for the fact that many defendants, including those who are not deemed to be vulnerable, are unable to participate in criminal proceedings in a meaningful sense. This paper aims to address two questions. First, why should defendants have participatory rights and be capable of meaningful participation in criminal proceedings? Second, why has it proven so difficult to attain meaningful participation of defendants? It is contended that barriers to meaningful communication between the defendant and the court could be dismantled without great difficulty, but continue to exist because due regard is not given to the normative rationales for participatory rights and defendant participation

Prosecuting rap: what does the case law tell us?

Forthcoming in Popular Music (2022). This article explores the admissibility and use of rap music as evidence in English criminal trials. It presents findings from an analysis of over thirty appeal cases. As well as unpacking the link between rap, race and gangs that is prevalent in these cases, the article challenges the categorisation of rap as ‘bad character evidence’, and critiques the way in which questions of relevance and prejudicial effect have been addressed by the courts. In particular, when making admissibility decisions, the courts appear to give little consideration to the cultural context, artistic conventions or social influences within the rap music genre, or the racialised nature of rap evidence. It is argued that, if rap is to be admissible evidence, a much more rigorous and informed approach is required

Part of art or part of life? Rap lyrics in criminal trials

Even a cursory review of the relevant case law suggests that, on the whole, the courts have taken an uninformed and dismissive attitude towards the prejudicial effect of rap music, writes Abenaa Owusu-Bempah. Such attitudes mean that prosecutors are able to rely on and reinforce racist stereotypes about Black young men and boys

Hate crime and the legal process: options for law reform

No description supplie

Hate crime and the “justice gap”: the case for law reform

This article presents key findings from an EU-funded two-year empirical study into the legal process for hate crime undertaken in England and Wales. The study is the first large-scale review of hate crime legislation since the Home Office review of racially aggravated offences in 2001-2002. This article is one of a series of papers which collectively examine the legal process for hate crime, from evidence gathering through to criminal procedure, legal interpretation and sentencing. We start from the position that hate crime legislation is a crucial mechanism through which identity-based hostility offences must be addressed. Notwithstanding the many criticisms that can be levelled against governments who focus primarily on punitive legislative measures to tackle what is a highly complex social phenomena, there are compelling reasons for legislating against hate which are now well-rehearsed within the extant literature and which will be discussed in more detail below, when outlining the justifications for law reform. The focus of this article is an evaluation of how hate crime laws are currently being applied in practice, to identify limitations in their application, and to determine whether and how hate crime laws should be reformed to improve their effective application

Racially and religiously aggravated offences: “God’s gift to defence”?

This article presents findings from a two-year empirical study of the operation of hate crime legislation in England and Wales. The article focusses primarily on the perspective of the defence. It uncovers a number of ways in which the current procedure for prosecuting racially and religiously aggravated offences creates the potential for improper and inappropriate convictions, while also adversely affecting victims of hate crime. It also considers whether the rights and interests of those accused of hate crime are best served through prosecution of specific hate crime offences or, alternatively, through the application of enhanced sentencing provisions