Parry v Director of Public Prosecutions

For the purpose of Crime and Disorder Act 1998, section 28(1)(a), the requirement that hostility be demonstrated at the time of the offence or immediately before or after it applies to both temporal alternatives. The words must be assessed in the immediate context of the substantive offence. A statement made at least 20 minutes later, after the offender had left the scene and returned home, fell outside that requirement. The victim need not be present or hear the words, provided the demonstration occurs in the immediate context of the offence. The conviction for racially aggravated criminal damage was therefore quashed.

Peter Mark Parry appealed by way of case stated against the decision of HHJ Woodward and two justices at Chester Crown Court, which had dismissed his appeal against conviction at Mold Magistrates’ Court for racially aggravated criminal damage.

Mr Parry admitted damaging his neighbour’s door but denied racial aggravation. About 20 minutes after the damage, while at home and speaking to a police officer, he used derogatory expressions referring to his neighbours’ Irish nationality. The central issues were whether the statutory word “immediately” qualified both “before” and “after”, whether the comments were sufficiently proximate to the offence, and whether hostility could be demonstrated when the victim was absent.

1. Appeal allowed. The Crown Court’s decision dismissing the appeal was quashed, as was the conviction for racially aggravated criminal damage.
2. Section 28(1)(a) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 requires hostility demonstrated towards the victim to be shown at the time of the offence, or immediately before or immediately after it. The word “immediately” qualifies both “before” and “after”. The provision concerns words or acts occurring in the immediate context of the substantive offence.
3. The Crown Court’s finding that the comments were made immediately after the offence was not open to it on the agreed facts. The appellant had left the scene and was in his own home at least 20 minutes after the damage. The comments therefore did not satisfy section 28(1)(a).
4. The court rejected the submission that the victim must be present when the hostility is demonstrated. Hostility may be demonstrated towards an absent victim if it occurs in the immediate context of the offence. Thus, racial abuse shouted immediately after damage to a victim’s door could qualify even if the victim had entered the house and did not hear it.
5. The court answered the first stated question “yes” and the sixth “no”. It declined to answer the remaining questions in light of its reasons and the way they were framed. The prosecution could invite the magistrates to reconsider the penalty imposed for the non-aggravated criminal damage.

• High Court (Administrative Court): Allowed the appeal by case stated, quashed the Chester Crown Court decision and quashed the conviction for racially aggravated criminal damage.
• Chester Crown Court: On 9 June 2004, dismissed the appeal against conviction by Mold Magistrates’ Court.
• Mold Magistrates’ Court: Convicted the appellant on 12 May 2004.