Fact check: What are the maximum penalties for individuals convicted of online hate speech in the UK?

Executive summary — Short answer up front with context and contrast.

The maximum statutory punishments for online hate-related offences in the UK differ by statute: stirring up racial or religious hatred under the Public Order Act 1986 carries up to seven years’ custody, while communications offences prosecuted under the Malicious Communications Act 1988 or communications provisions historically have maximums of up to two years in the Crown Court (six months in magistrates’ courts) for many malicious or grossly offensive messages; the Online Safety Act 2023 has layered new offence types and creates additional maximums and modernised offences that vary by offence type (threats, false communications, intimate image sharing) ^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]}. Reported case sentences sometimes exceed common short-term maxima because courts apply higher-range custodial sentences where charges are filed in Crown Court and where offences are read as more serious indictable conduct ^{[6] [7]}.

1. Why the law looks like a patchwork — overlapping statutes and different maxima make the risk unclear.

The UK’s legal landscape for online hate speech is fragmented across older communication statutes, the Public Order Act, and recent digital-era laws. The Public Order Act 1986 specifically criminalises stirring up racial hatred with a statutory maximum of seven years’ imprisonment ^{[1] [2]}. By contrast, communications offences such as those under the Malicious Communications Act 1988 or section 127-related offences historically attract shorter maximum sentences — six months in magistrates’ courts and up to two years if tried in the Crown Court ^{[3] [4]}. The Online Safety Act 2023 layers new communications offences and duty-of-care obligations for platforms, broadening the menu of possible charges and penalties for online behaviour without replacing the older offences outright ^{[5] [8]}.

2. New Online Safety Act offences change the landscape — different offences, different maximums.

The Online Safety Act 2023 both imposes duties on platforms and introduces new specific offences: sharing intimate images, threatening death or serious harm, and other modern communications offences. Coverage in the dataset highlights that the Act updates and extends communications offences and sets out new criminal categories, but the statutory maxima depend on the specific offence charged ^{[5] [7]}. Government and reporting summaries tie some harm-based online offences to maximum custodial terms ranging from up to 51 weeks for certain false communications to up to five years for some threatening communications and up to two years for harm-based offences, reflecting a mix of summary and indictable sentencing regimes ^[7].

3. Sentencing in practice — prosecutions show sentences above short summary maxima where Crown Court involvement occurs.

Practical outcomes demonstrate that sentences can exceed the magistrates’ court limits when cases proceed to Crown Court or when offences are framed as severe incitement or stirring-up. Reporting shows jailed sentences of 31 months and 38 months for cases involving incitement and publication intending to stir up racial hatred, indicating courts imposed multi-year custodial terms consistent with indictable or more serious charges ^{[6] [9]}. Prosecutors and commentators emphasise a high evidential threshold for prosecuting grossly offensive or malicious communications, meaning fewer prosecutions but potentially heavier sentences when aggravating factors push matters to Crown Court ^[10].

4. What prosecutors and rights advocates emphasise — thresholds, free speech and prosecutorial discretion.

Two competing emphases shape enforcement: law enforcement and prosecutors stress the need for a high evidential and public-interest threshold before depriving speech of protection, particularly on social media, while victims’ advocates stress the harms and call for robust enforcement and platform responsibility. The dataset notes that the law distinguishes online hate from protected free speech and requires substantial evidence to prosecute “grossly offensive” or hate-inciting communications, contributing to selective prosecutions and variable sentencing outcomes ^{[10] [8]}. The Online Safety Act’s platform duties aim to shift some responsibility onto intermediaries, but criminal sanctions still hinge on prosecutorial decisions and charging choices.

5. Bottom line for an individual — exposure to years behind bars is plausible depending on charge and court.

An individual convicted of online hate can face a spectrum of penalties: up to seven years for stirring up racial or religious hatred, up to two years for many malicious communications when tried in Crown Court (six months in magistrates’ court), and other offences created or updated by the Online Safety Act carry varied maximums (from summary terms to multi-year custodial limits) depending on the offence and whether it is tried on indictment ^{[1] [3] [4] [7] [5]}. Case law and reporting confirm multi-year sentences have been imposed where conduct meets the higher thresholds of incitement or serious threatening communications, so the practical risk to an individual depends heavily on charge selection, court venue, and aggravating facts ^{[6] [7]}.