@2boys I hope you don’t mind me saying but I’m not sure that you understand exactly what the case is about. It’s a complicated area but you seem to be picking up lots of bits and pieces from websites that aren’t relevant to the case and that seems to be causing confusion.
First of all, this is about “non-crime hate incidents” it is not about hate crime. Hate crimes have to involve a crime and the police are not suggesting that there has been a crime here. That’s a crucial difference because crimes are defined in law and tested in court so it’s clear what they are and why the police are involved.
This is about non-crime hate incidents. They are not defined in law. They are defined in the operational guidance of the College of Policing especially pages 60-63 of this. This guidance does not create law, instead it tries to give police guideance in how to act within the law. The definition that it uses of a non-crime hate incident is:
“any non-crime incident which is perceived by the victim, or any other person, to be motivated (wholly or partially) by a hostility or prejudice.
Harry is launching a judicial review. The point of judicial review is to make sure that public bodies, including the College of Policing, the Police and the Crown Prosecution Service are acting within the law. That law includes the Human Rights Act. Harry is presumably arguing that the guidance is so vague and subjective that almost anything can be a ‘non-crime hate incident’ and so it breaches human rights because there is no way of knowing when your perfectly lawful speech or actions will be investigated as a non-crime hate incident. Presumably he is also arguing that even if the guidance itself is lawful then it was applied by Humberside police in this case in a way that breaches his human rights. The College of Policing is completely aware of this possibility. They warn about it on page 62 of the guidance.
You don’t have to agree with Harry’s words to see that this challenge is an important one. TheOtherPamAyres has some good posts on this thread and especially why the police might welcome the challenge. I hope she doesn't mind me copying her earlier post here because I thought it explained the issues really well. She said:
“I'll hazard an (educated) guess that front-line police officers will welcome the action.
If you've ever been put in the untenable position of 'warning' a blameless individual, exercising their human right to free speech in a way that breaks no laws, then you will know that the guidance on 'hate incidents' was a scandal waiting to happen.
You will also know that once the public lose confidence in the police and see them acting oppressively and foolishly, then the contract of 'policing by consent in the UK' is broken.
For those reasons officers crave clarity and direction. They want the public confidence to be restored. “
I hope that helps you see why the challenge is important even for people who don’t agree with Harry’s views.