United Kingdom / England and Wales High Court / EWHC 464 (Admin) / Henderson v. Crown Prosecution Service

Country

United Kingdom

Title

United Kingdom / England and Wales High Court / EWHC 464 (Admin) / Henderson v. Crown Prosecution Service

View full Case

Year

2016

Decision/ruling/judgment date

Tuesday, February 23, 2016

Incident(s) concerned/related

Harassment

Related Bias motivation

Race/Ethnicity
Religion

Groups affected

Muslims
Migrants
Refugees & asylum seekers
EU citizens & nationals with migrant background
Third country nationals
Foreigners
Black people or of African origin
Other religious groups

Court/Body type

National Court

Court/Body

England and Wales High Court

Key facts of the case

The appellant had been convicted for three offences of harassment and for three offences of racially aggravated harassment. Both sets of convictions concerned the same victims and arose from the same facts but the two offences had been characterised as alternatives. Despite having been found guilty of the underlying offences the court imposed no separate penalty for them.

Main reasoning/argumentation

The question for the court was what the proper course of action should be when a defendant is found guilty of a racially or religiously aggravated offence when they had been charged with an underlying offence arising from the same facts.

Is the case related to the application of the Framework Decision on Racism and Xenophobia, the Racial Equality Directive?

Key issues (concepts, interpretations) clarified by the case

Defendants should not be convicted for both underlying offences and aggravated offences that arise from the same set of facts. The underlying offences should be adjourned sine die and the convictions should be based on the aggravating offences. Furthermore plea offers for underlying offences should not be accepted at the expense of aggravating offences.

Results (sanctions, outcome) and key consequences or implications of the case

The court held that, as a matter of principle, where there are two charges which are properly characterised as alternatives there should not be findings of guilt on both charges. Accordingly, in such circumstances a Magistrate should adjourn the trial of the underlying offences sine die. The appellate judge also held that in cases where a defendant is offering a guilty plea to the underlying offences but wishes to contest the aggravated offence, that plea should not be taken. The appeal was therefore allowed and the defendant’s convictions for the underlying offences were quashed.

Key quotation in original language and its unofficial translation into English with reference details

"As a matter of principle where there are two charges which are properly characterised as alternatives (as were the charges in the present case) there should not be findings of guilt on both charges; and it is not open to a Magistrates' Court to make a finding of guilt on an alternative underlying offence having made a finding of guilt on the aggravated offence."

DISCLAIMERThe information presented here is collected under contract by the FRA's research network FRANET. The information and views contained do not necessarily reflect the views or the official position of the FRA.