Newham police officers found not guilty of racism
A Metropolitan Police officer who admitted comparing a black man to a monkey while out on patrol in Newham has been cleared of racially aggravated harassment.
PC Kevin Hughes, 36, of Brentwood, Essex was also found not guilty today at Westminster Magistrates’ Court of using threatening words or behaviour to cause alarm and distress,
His colleague, PC David Hair, 42, of Epping, was also cleared of both charges following a three-day trial.
The court heard PC Hughes say he made the comments on February 22 because he saw a black man with “elongated arms” and a “gait” like a monkey while out on patrol with three colleagues in Green Street.
But the officer, of Brentwood, Essex, said it was “upsetting” that anyone would think he was racist.
You may also want to watch:
The man was black but Hughes said he only had a “fleeting glance” at him. But he admitted saying he used the word “chimpanzee” to describe him.
PC Hair, 42, was accused of allegedly telling, on March 13, a female black colleague, PC Julia Dacres, he thought she was going to “rant” about overtime and not do any because she was “going home to cook bananas”.
Most Read
- 1 Roof destroyed by fire in Upton Park
- 2 Jailed: 'Violent' Beckton man who threatened to chop off ex-partner's head
- 3 Guilty: Who was jailed across east London in July?
- 4 Midfielder Ouss Cisse confirms Leyton Orient departure
- 5 'It's about safety': Manor Park neighbours urge council to crack down on pavement parking
- 6 Tyrese Omotoye impresses on O's trial as Ouss Cisse looks set to depart
- 7 Next court date for drink driving accused after Beckton collision
- 8 Moyes: It was a good, tough test for West Ham at Brentford
- 9 New developments given the green light in Newham so far this year
- 10 Forest Gate flats bid gets green light despite neighbours' objections
Senior District Judge Howard Riddle said: “Whatever precisely PC Hughes said, it was unacceptable and offensive.”
He said that “in these circumstances it did not amount to a criminal offence”.
Noting that “context is central”, Mr Riddle pointed out there had been no aggression or threat.
He said: “Freedom of speech is a cherished principle. Freedom of speech includes the freedom to be offensive.
“It is, of course, restrained in a number of ways - employers can require employees to avoid offensive language or lose their jobs. The civil courts can provide redress for harm caused.
“But when the state tells people what they can or cannot say, on pain of criminal sanction, the position is different. Citizens expect strong justification for curtailing freedom of expression. Offensiveness is not enough.”
