Non-crime hate incidents (NCHIs) could be renamed rather than abolished, a senior policing figure has suggested. As reported by The Telegraph, Lord Herbert, chairman of the College of Policing (CoP), said the idea of rebranding the controversial powers was being considered amid a growing backlash.
An NCHI is defined as an incident or alleged incident that involves or is alleged to involve an act by a person (‘the subject’) which is perceived by someone other than the subject to be motivated – wholly or partly – by hostility or prejudice towards individuals with a particular characteristic. While NCHIs are non-criminal, they can be considered for disclosure in certain circumstances, such as during enhanced background checks when applying for a job.
The stated purpose of recording NCHIs is to monitor and address incidents that, while not meeting the threshold of a criminal offence, may indicate underlying tensions or prejudices within communities. According to the CoP, this proactive approach helps prevent such incidents from escalating into more serious offences.
In theory, police forces are only supposed to record them where there is a serious risk of significant harm that could escalate into criminality – not simply because someone feels offended. Yet more than 13,000 NCHIs were recorded across England and Wales last year, prompting warnings from campaigners about their chilling effect on free speech.
Here’s an extract from The Telegraph report:
Challenged at a meeting in the House of Lords over the use of NCHIs, Lord Herbert acknowledged that they were “contradictory, alarming and confusing”, and said renaming them was one option under consideration.
But critics have dismissed the suggestion, insisting it is not the name that is the problem but the impact they have on law-abiding members of the public.
In November, Allison Pearson, the Telegraph columnist, was visited at her home by officers from Essex Police following a complaint over a social media post. Pearson initially believed that she was being investigated for an NCHI, and the incident resulted in a public debate about their use.
Last week, a grandmother revealed that two plain clothes officers from Greater Manchester Police attended her home after she posted a comment critical of a local councillor on Facebook.
The Government has defended NCHIs as a useful tool in addressing a surge in Islamophobia and anti-Semitism. But critics claim they are a distraction for overstretched police forces and are dragging officers into refereeing social media spats.
In November, Lord Herbert, a former policing minister, called for a rethink of the recording of NCHIs, conceding that they had become a distraction for forces. In December, he went further and suggested they could potentially be scrapped in their current form.
But sources at the Lords meeting earlier this month said he continued to defend their use, although conceding they were having an impact on public confidence in policing.
One source who was present said: “There was no real detail around the proposal, such as what the new name for non-crime hate incidents might be, but the suggestion was greeted with a degree of derision and did nothing to assuage the concerns of us there.”
A spokesman for the College of Policing said it was not “credible” to claim that Lord Herbert was arguing for the retention or renaming of NCHIs, given his previous stated position on the issue.
The spokesman said: “His view remains that public confidence in the police is being undermined by the current system, and we need to find a better way to prevent serious harm while protecting free speech and ensuring the police can get on with the job people expect them to do.”
Dr Fred Attenborough, the Communications Officer of the Free Speech Union, said: “Rebranding non-crime hate incidents won’t fix the core problem. The police still have the power to log names and opinions, and these records can still appear on enhanced DBS checks, affecting careers – all without a crime being committed.
“No one should face potential blacklisting for exercising their lawful right to free expression. If the Government is serious about protecting free speech, it should scrap the system entirely, not just tinker with the name.”
There’s more on this story here.
