Don’t Blame it on the Judge.
Lucy Connolly is not a victim of injustice!
Don’t Blame it on the Judge.
The response from some political commentators to the sentencing of Lucy Connelly for incitement to racial hatred has baffled me. This is because there was nothing legally interesting about her case. Certainly, from an application of the law perspective. Much of the outrage as to her sentence seems to be based on her being a woman and a mother, and not the law.
Lucy Connolly was sentenced to 2 1/2 years imprisonment under section 19 (1) of the Public Order Act 1986. This act prohibits the publishing of material with the intention to incite racial hatred or in circumstances where the publishing of such material would be likely to incite racial hatred.
Following the Southport knife attack by Axel Rudakubana, a child of Rwandan refugees. Lucy Connolly posted the following: "Mass deportation now. Set fire to all the fucking hotels full of the bastards for all I care. While you're at it, take the treacherous government and politicians with them. I feel physically sick knowing what these families will now have to endure. If that makes me racist, so be it."1
This was a direct incitement to violence, unlike the earlier conviction of Sam Melia under the same legislation. Who was prosecuted for incitement to racial hatred as well as causing criminal damage with the intention of inciting racial hatred?2 He was posting stickers in a Telegram group as well as putting up stickers in his local area. They were opposed to mass immigration and the abuse of the asylum system. None of the stickers he put up directly incited violence, and the most radical of which were referring to illegal migrants as invaders.3 This rhetoric is fairly common within the British commentariat. With Suell Braverman the former Home Secretary in her role as Home Secretary regularly describing illegal migrants as invaders.4
To convict Sam Melia of incitement to racial hatred, the prosecution used evidence of his political views and role in Patriotic Alternative as evidence that he intended the stickers to incite racial hatred.5 This was not the case with Lucy Connelly; in her statement, she directly incited violence. As well as discussing doing violence to illegal migrant hotels with a friend.6 It should be noted that the Court didn’t really believe that Lucy calmly intended to engage in violence against illegal migrants herself. In fact, this is why Lucy Connelly was convicted of incitement to racial hatred and not a terrorism offence. In my opinion, it seems to be poor judgment for anyone to say that she shouldn’t have been punished for her tweet on the 29th of July.
The case of Lucy Connolly is not unique; it is one of many people following the Southport attack. Posted ill-advised comments on social media, which were later prosecuted under the Public Order Act 1986 or other legislation. People who made comparable comments to Lucy Conley were also imprisoned for similar amounts of time. It is concerning that there has been such a focus on Lucy Conley and the alleged injustice she has faced. While the dozens of people who made less severe comments were still imprisoned, they have received little support or interest in their cases. Holding Lucy up as a single example of injustice following the Southport riots. Seems to be poor optics because her tweets were considerably more extreme than many others who were imprisoned under the same or similar legislation following the Southport attack and subsequent riots.
My thoughts on the sentence
The sentence of Lucy Connolly was criticised in the media and by political commentators, and free-speech advocates. As either completely unjust or excessive, given her personal circumstances. Those being that she had previously lost a child, and the southpaw attack brought back traumatic memories for her.7 Despite this, the prosecution was able to successfully establish that the offence committed by Lucy Connolly. In terms of culpability and seriousness of the offence, there was both high culpability and high seriousness. This put the offence in terms of sentencing Council guidelines at a level 1A. This meant that the starting point for the sentence was approximately three years in custody, with the maximum being seven.8 The prosecution was able to establish this with reference to the timing of her statement as well as its serious nature. Initially, Lucy Connolly's defence did not dispute the high culpability and seriousness of the offence. However, it would be subsequently challenged as part of her appeal of the sentence.9 Which is not an appeal of guilt, but an appeal on the grounds that the sentence was excessive.
My personal opinion of Lucy Conley is that it was in line with the sentencing council guidelines. However, I’m somewhat skeptical of the sentencing guidelines themselves as well as sections 17 to 23 of the 1986 Public Order Act. This is because, especially following the Sam Melia case, the act has been shown to prohibit, at least in some circumstances. Strong criticisms of ethnic and religious groups are made in such a way that it is unclear where the line is. It is important that people are legally allowed to criticise ethnic and religious groups based on their ethnicity or religion. This is because, despite what liberals may think, a person’s religion or ethnicity affects their conduct. Often, ethnic and religious loyalties transcend the loyalty a person has to the state. This is not necessarily a bad thing, provided that the state reflects a person’s religion and ethnicity. In such circumstances, the role of the state can be greatly reduced because people will belong. Such belonging will lead to greater trust and cooperation between individuals.
When this is not the case, different ethnic and religious groups must live together. The characteristics and shortcomings of particular ethnic and religious groups. Must be discussed so that they can be mitigated. A broad understanding of the Public Order Act can make it difficult to understand social ills such as grooming gangs as problems that are inherent to a particular ethnic and religious community. The perpetrators are from a particular community, and the particular community turns a blind eye to the perpetrators. This is mainly because such behaviour is somewhat tolerated in other parts of the world. As a result when such people become resident in Britain rape gangs are acceptable ways to conduct ethnic conflict.
The appeal itself
The appeal of Lucy Connelly's sentence was on two grounds. The first was that Connelly's culpability was misapplied. The appellant argued that she should have been found to have medium level culpability, a culpability level of B. Secondly, the judge should have found that the mitigating factors outweighed the aggravating factors. Thus, giving Lucy Connelly a more lenient sentence10.
The first grounds of appeal were rejected by the appeal court because Lucy Connelly had accepted the assigned culpability level for the offence when she pleaded guilty. Furthermore, she signed an endorsement stating that she understood the benefits and consequences of pleading guilty when she did. Those being that if she contested the culpability by way of Newton hearing, she could have lost part of her credit for an early guilty plea. Despite the arguments made by the appellant that she had not been adequately advised and that she was not in a position to make such a decision because of her mental state, the appeal court rejected this ground.11
Secondly, the appeal court disagreed that the mitigating factors of the death of Lucy Connolly’s son in 2011 outweighed the aggravating factors of the rioting post the Southport attack.12
Like the original sentence, I’m of the opinion that the Court of Appeal’s decision in this case was legally sound. However, when Lucy Connelly’s sentence is compared to those of other offenders such as Hugh Edwards and Mike Amesbury, it can appear that some judges and magistrates are unfairly lenient. The issue of excessively lenient sentences for certain offenders is primarily due to the Sentencing Council's guidelines.
The Appeal itself has been widely criticised by commentators such as Katie Hopkins and Charlie Kirk. Their criticisms have little foundation in law and mostly appeal to free speech arguments. Which I’m not unsympathetic to. Although the lack of legal knowledge from the critics has led to some peculiar theories as to why the judgment was made the way it was. The most drastic of these was after hearing the oral submissions. Which ordinarily, for this type of appeal, are not heard. Instead, such appeals are normally decided upon written submissions. This was an opportunity for the judge to seek instruction from the government. This suggestion is quite frankly ridiculous. It is normal for judges in most jurisdictions to retire to their chambers to consider both oral and written submissions before making a judgment. In some instances, where cases are particularly simple, judges will make decisions without retiring to their chambers.
However, because the Lucy Connolly appeal was sufficiently complex for the judge to hear oral submissions, it is unsurprising that the judge retired to his chambers before making a judgment.
Lucy Connolly v The King [2025] EWCA Crim 657. Pars 4
Crown Prosecution Service, 'UPDATED WITH SENTENCE: Far-right organiser found guilty of intent to stir up racial hatred through distribution of stickers' (4 March 2024) https://www.cps.gov.uk/cps/news/updated-sentence-far-right-organiser-found-guilty-intent-stir-racial-hatred-through accessed 22 May 2025.
See above 2
The Telegraph, 'More than half of Britons back Suella Braverman claim that migrant crossings are an "invasion"' (20 October 2023) https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/10/20/51pc-britons-agree-braverman-small-boats-migrants-invasion/ accessed 22 May 2025.
See above 2
Lucy Connolly v The King [2025] EWCA Crim 657 Pars 8-10
Lucy Connolly v The King [2025] EWCA Crim 657 pars 24-26
Lucy Connolly v The King [2025] EWCA Crim 657 Pars 18-22
Lucy Connolly v The King [2025] EWCA Crim 657 Pars
Lucy Connolly v The King [2025] EWCA Crim 657 Pars 35-37 and Pars 52 – 54
Lucy Connolly v The King [2025] EWCA Crim 657 pars 59 – 65
Lucy Connolly v The King [2025] EWCA Crim 657 pars 60