In recent weeks, a media furor has erupted in the UK over police recording of “non-crime hate incidents” or NCHIs. The controversy was sparked by a Daily Telegraph column describing a police visit to the author’s home over a year-old tweet that someone had reported as a potential NCHI. The story unleashed a barrage of coverage and commentary, with critics slamming NCHIs as an Orwellian overreach threatening free speech.
But what exactly are non-crime hate incidents? And are they really the woke thought police run amok that the outrage suggests?
Understanding Non-Crime Hate Incidents
NCHIs have their origins in the 1999 MacPherson report following the racially-motivated murder of black British teenager Stephen Lawrence. The report recommended that police record both criminal and non-criminal racist incidents to better monitor patterns of prejudice. Over time, the College of Policing expanded NCHIs to cover hostility based on disability, religion, sexual orientation and gender identity.
According to the guidance, any non-crime incident “motivated by intentional hostility” toward a protected group must be recorded, even without evidence. The intent is to allow communities frequently subjected to prejudice to report incidents without having to determine if a crime occurred. Proponents argue NCHIs help police diagnose brewing problems and prevent hate crimes.
Questionable NCHI Examples Grab Headlines
However, many of the NCHI examples highlighted by media reports don’t tell the full story:
- The Telegraph columnist’s case turned out to be a criminal investigation, not an NCHI
- A “dodgy haircut hate crime” NCHI involved a Lithuanian man who felt his Russian-speaking barber became hostile after discussing the Ukraine war
- An alleged “gender row” handshake refusal NCHI was actually thought to be motivated by the victim’s gender identity
While not crimes, these incidents reflect real experiences of hostility that fall short of the sensational framing.
Concerns and Criticisms of NCHI System
That said, there are legitimate issues with how NCHIs currently operate:
- Stretched police resources being expended on non-crimes
- Overly subjective thresholds based on vague concepts of hostility
- Inconsistent recording practices across forces
- Employment vetting flagging up NCHI subjects who faced no criminal charges
“Police sometimes simply record the incident as a crime rather than consider whether it might be an NCHI or whether no further record is needed.”
– His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services report
Protecting Vulnerable Communities vs. Policing Speech
At the heart of the debate is a tension between two key priorities: protecting frequently victimized groups and upholding free expression, even when offensive. Minority advocates emphasize NCHIs’ role in identifying concerning patterns and encouraging reporting by those who often distrust police. But heavy-handed recording of offensive yet lawful speech as NCHIs understandably provokes backlash.
“Victim-led hate reporting has had significant and important positive impacts for police, and communities, in diagnosing harm, extremism, and failing community cohesion efforts.”
– Danny Stone, Antisemitism Policy Trust
Politically, NCHIs have become a lightning rod with Home Secretary Yvette Cooper considering strengthening the system while her predecessor Suella Braverman curtailed it on free speech grounds. But practical and ethical questions go beyond partisan squabbles.
An Imperfect Tool Requiring Reform
Non-crime hate incidents are a well-intentioned but flawed mechanism for monitoring prejudice and preventing hate crimes. Abuses and overreach demand correction, but scrapping NCHIs entirely could leave vulnerable groups without recourse. Reforms should set clearer, more objective standards for recording NCHIs while limiting their disclosure in background checks.
Police must also discern criminal investigations from mere recording of troubling non-criminal behavior. Better training and more sparing, judicious use of NCHIs could restore trust. The NCHI system arose from a tragedy of justice system failure regarding hate. Refining it requires balancing public safety with personal liberties in an inclusive democracy.
