Worryingly vague

The SNP’S Hate Crime Act is worryingly vague. there seems to be no mechanism whereby one can ascertain exactly what is and what is not illegal and that is bad law.

If I drive my car over a certain speed, I know where I stand if there is a speed limit. If I take drugs which are illegal, then I know the penalty. It is an exact matter, but the very vague definitions in this Act are impossible to quantify. It mentions "ill will", but that is a matter of attitude. What is it? Does it exist in exact quantities? no. surely, you can not make“ill will” illegal? we all bear ill will at times, don’ t we?

There is nothing that you can lay on a table and say, "that is ill will". If it depends upon membership of a group, would being a member of apolitical groupingthat calls for a ban on men in women' s prisons meet that criterion? If so, that is deeply worryingand restrict s political choice.

It mentions an offence which is" aggravated by prejudice ", but what if the opinion is "postjudice" and based upon previous experience, unlike "prejudice" which describes an opinion formed before any experience has been had. Does that make the offence unpunishable? How do you distinguish prejudice from postjudice?

Confusingly, the Act refers to "Consequences of aggravation by prejudice ... where it is' libelled in an indictment' ". I didn't think that" lib el" was a term that existed in Scots Law. If that is so, why is it used in an Act in Scots Law and how can it possibly be defined in Scots Law?

Andrew HN Gray

Edinburgh