Miller v College Of Policing

I know people aren't allowed to name names on this thread

Is that right? Why not? Why does the author of those clearly hateful digital messages need anonymity?

I know people aren't allowed to name names on this thread, but do Harry and Sarah know who Honey Badger/Mrs B is? Surely you have the right to know the name of the person making accusations against you?

Those messages from MrsB are ever so kind aren't they.

On any objective view those messages are hateful and malicious and would surely reach the bar for prosecution.

Oh Wow!!

Who recorded that

My assumption Datun would be that if the College of Policing revised their Guidance so that there had to be a positive assessment for hate before an incident could be recorded there's a good chance this wouldn't be unlawful in the eyes of the Court of Appeal. The tricky thing is how half-arsed such revision could be.

The CoP might try their arm and go for a figleaf "tightening" of the Guidance that would have little impact on the amount of extra work this would lumber the Police with.

What good news. Well done Harry (and Sarah P and all the rest) for pursuing this.

I mean, are they required to assess them all, or can they pick and choose? Because that would still allow for massive bias.

So nauticant for a lay person like me, is it that they can still record 'hate incidents', but they have to justify them on the grounds of them being hateful? And as you point out, they would have to go through about 24,000 annually?

What are the implications of that?

52. There are five grounds of appeal. These are (1) the judge was wrong to hold that the principle of legality is merely a principle of statutory construction, and therefore wrong to decide that the impugned provisions in Chapter 6 of the Guidance are lawful in the absence of express statutory or established common law authorisation; (2) the judge was wrong to hold that the approach in the Guidance to the mandatory recording of ‘non-crime hate incidents’ in the absence of any evidence of hate is lawful as a matter of common law; (3) the judge was wrong to hold that the impugned provisions in Chapter 6 of the Guidance involve no interference with the right to freedom of expression under Article 10(1) of the Convention; (4) the judge was wrong to hold that the impugned provisions in Chapter 6 of the Guidance satisfy the Convention requirement of “foreseeability”, with the consequence that he was incorrect to conclude that any interference with Article 10(1) of the Convention arising from those provisions is “prescribed by law” for the purposes of Article 10(2) of the Convention; and (5) the judge was wrong to hold that the impugned provisions in Chapter 6 of the Guidance are “necessary in a democratic society”.

Harry Miller won on grounds (3) and (5). This is not one of more straightforward judgments to read.

Legal cases are stressful and the toll on you and your family must have awful. Harry, thank you for pursuing this.

I think I might have missed some context. Are Mrs B and Honey Badger the same person? And when/why did they start threatening Harry? Those tweets are exceptionally unpleasant.

I note clicking on the link that Twitter is offering me this tweet, 2 by JK and a whole host of anti-vax opinions. Ironic self own by the writers of the social algorithms.

Looking at the judgment the thing that swung it for Harry Miller was that there has been a mandatory requirement to record NCHIs, which meant that there was no assessment of the incident to check whether it had passed a threshold of hate.

One clear solution would be for Police forces to assess NCHIs and then only to record them if a "hate threshold" was passed. All of the tens of thousands of them* reported each year.

*120,000 recorded between 2014-2019.

They still should charge Mrs B

I’m so pleased for Harry, it’s such a big victory.

Really excellent news. Dismantling this shitshow one step at a time. Well done!

Why the fuck the police listened to them for a second is beyond me. What a monumental waste of public funds.

Well the transwoman said they had contacts in the police, I expect it’s true and it needs investigating.

judgment here www.judiciary.uk/judgments/miller-v-the-college-of-policing/

Bloody hell. I can't believe that the police took Mrs B seriously.

What the fuck are those messages from the Honey badger. Showing themselves to be an utter lunatic. Why the fuck the police listened to them for a second is beyond me. What a monumental waste of public funds.

This feels huge. Congratulations Harry and thank you. Also thank you to Sarah Phillimore and I know there are others involved too, sorry I don't know your names.

Yes. Congratulations and gratitude from this woman, and from the rest of the country that didn't even hear about non-crime incidents or grasp the implications.

Got the timing wrong, the time on the stream is counting down rather than counting up because it's a live stream. It looks like it's about 1 hour 25 minutes from the start of the stream.

I am thrilled for Harry. What great news.