Racial and Religious Hatred Bill

I have made one substantive point and I have three more to make. As I have said, I am relaxed about taking interventions but I must make progress. The second effect of the amendments agreed by their Lordships is the removal of what was known as the ““likely limb””, leaving only intent as the threshold for prosecutions under the offence. It remains our clear view that intent by itself is not enough, but rather than seeking to reinstate the likely limb, we have decided to introduce an additional test of subjective recklessness, so for a prosecution to succeed, it would be necessary to prove either that someone intended to stir up hatred, or that they were aware that their actions or words would stir up religious hatred, yet they continued. No one could be caught out inadvertently, as some have feared. It is worth pointing out that, in Committee, Opposition Members suggested that a recklessness provision might be a good substitute for the likely limb. Indeed, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) said that such a provision"““is a sensible test, and one with which juries and judges are enormously familiar.””—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 30 June 2005; col. 83.]" In the same debate, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone) said:"““I understand that the law uses recklessness as a benchmark to judge whether the perpetrator knew what they were doing and what the likely consequences of it would be, but proceeded to do it anyway.””—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 30 June 2005; col. 85.]" I therefore hope that the addition of a recklessness test will provide further common ground.