Non-Crime Hate Incidents: A New Policing Frontier? (21 October 2025)

In a significant policy announcement, the Metropolitan Police have confirmed that they will no longer initiate investigations into so-called non-crime hate incidents (NCHIs) following the high-profile case of Graham?Linehan, in which charges were dropped after his arrest for tweets relating to transgender issues. From a criminal defence perspective, this change marks a crucial clarification: policing will now focus on conduct that crosses the line into criminality, rather than broader notions of “offensive” or “hostile” speech. However, the distinction between protected free expression and hate-crime liability remains complex, and clients must understand when they may fall into the criminal sphere.

What is “Hate Speech” and When Does It Become a Criminal Offence?

In the UK, “hate speech” is not a stand-alone offence per se. Rather, criminal liability arises when speech targets a person or group on the basis of a protected characteristic (such as race, religion, sexual orientation, gender reassignment, disability) and meets the legal threshold for offence. For example, those under the Public?Order?Act?1986 (sections 18–23), the Malicious?Communications?Act?1988, or the Communications?Act?2003.

Key elements in assessing when speech becomes criminal include:

• Hostility or intent directed at a protected characteristic;
• Incitement or likelihood of stirring up hatred or violence;
• Public or semi-public dissemination rather than purely private dispute;
• Context, audience and medium (e.g. social media amplification).
  As a defence practitioner, you must scrutinise whether the speech was expressive but lawful, or crossed into incitement, threat, or harassment.

High-Profile Cases: Drawing the Boundaries

Graham Linehan

Linehan’s arrest for transgender-related tweets and the subsequent decision not to prosecute triggered the Met’s policy shift. His case illustrates the risk of policing “non-crime” incidents where the line of criminality is unclear.

Lucy Connolly

A clearer example of criminal liability is the case of Lucy Connolly, who was jailed for 31 months after a social-media post advocating for “mass deportation” and arson of hotels housing asylum seekers following the Southport murders. She pleaded guilty to inciting racial hatred via X (formerly Twitter).

The facts: the post was viewed over 310,000 times, contained violent imagery, targeted a protected group (immigration status/ethnicity), and was shared publicly and during a particularly sensitive social climate

The conviction clearly shows how the threshold for criminal liability can be met in online speech.

Broader Context

While numerous cases of online abuse and hostile speech remain below the criminal threshold, the rising number of prosecutions for online hate-speech (related to race and religion) indicates increasing enforcement. In Connolly’s case, prosecuting authorities emphasised that a core difference is “intent” and “effect” – not simply offensive language.

The Significance of the Met’s Decision

From a defence vantage point, the Met’s decision is a welcome recalibration.

• Benefit: Individuals engaged in strongly worded or controversial speech but without evidence of incitement or threat now face a reduced risk of formal police investigation into NCHIs.
• Clarification: Police will focus resources on signals of criminality rather than policing unpopular ideas or expression alone.
• Caveat: The incident may still be recorded as intelligence and used in future investigations; it is not erased from view. Also, internal or reputational risks (employment, platform sanctions) remain even where criminal liability is absent.

What This Means for Clients and Legal Advisers

For Individuals

• Know your rights: Freedom of expression is protected but not absolute. If your speech targets a protected group and escalates to incitement or threat, criminal liability may follow.
• Context matters: Public dissemination, large audience, repeated posts, calls for destruction or violence – these all weaken the defence.
• Immediate advice: If you find yourself under investigation, ask whether the basis is a crime or a non-crime incident. Early legal advice is critical.

For Organisations and Employers

• Internal policy vs criminal risk: A social-media post may attract disciplinary action even if it does not reach the threshold for criminal offence.
• Review content & training: Staff awareness of hate-speech laws, social-media standards and reporting procedures is essential.
• Be proactive: If you moderate user content or host public forums, have clear policies for escalation and legal review.

Practical Steps and Risk-Management Advice

For speakers/posts

• Avoid language that explicitly targets protected groups with hostility or encourages violence.
• Consider whether your statement is provocative but lawful, or whether it risks incitement – if in doubt seek advice.
• Monitor context: even metaphorical or ironic content risks reinterpretation in a court of law.

For defence practitioners

• Assess whether the speech meets the intent + likelihood threshold for incitement or hate crime.
• Investigate the platform, audience size, reposts/shares, previous history of the speaker and context of the post.
• Challenge investigations of non-crime hate incidents by emphasising free expression and absence of elements needed to make out a criminal offence.
• Prepare mitigation focusing on context, motive, and actual reception.

Conclusion

The Metropolitan Police’s announcement represents a turning point: lawful expression that offends or upsets may now – at least in theory – be handled outside of criminal investigation when it does not meet the statutory thresholds. However, the line between offence and offence-plus-crime remains both vital and complex.

For anyone operating in this space – whether as a speaker, employer or legal adviser — it is vital to: know the boundary, act early, and seek advice when in doubt. The threshold for criminal hate-speech remains high, but context and amplification mean the stakes have never been greater.

About the author:

Sunjay Versani is a Solicitor, High Court Advocate and Director of the City of London and Harrow crime team at Duncan Lewis Solicitors. For advice in any criminal litigation matter, contact Sunjay via email at sunjayv@duncanlewis.com or via telephone on 020 7923 4020.

Duncan Lewis Solicitor’s criminal defence department is renowned for its well-prepared, high-quality work and the ability to assemble first-rate evidence and documentation. The team has a significant practice defending clients in serious and complex criminal cases, particularly gang related serious crime, murder, and drugs importations. Their defence expertise extends to motoring law offences; business and HMRC fraud; cases of sexual abuse, including rape; violent crime; and terrorism.