How do police investigate alleged hate speech incidents and decide to make arrests in the UK?
Executive summary
Police in England and Wales investigate alleged hate speech by first deciding whether reported conduct meets a criminal threshold (a hate crime) or is a non‑crime hate incident; forces record and investigate criminal hate offences and until recently many recorded non‑crime hate incidents too, but the Metropolitan Police has said it will no longer investigate non‑crime hate incidents to focus on criminal cases [1] [2]. Prosecutors follow police evidence to decide charges; College of Policing and local force procedures require supervisors to assess motivation, risk and whether Article 10 free‑speech rights are engaged [3] [4].
1. How police distinguish a crime from a non‑crime incident — the legal and procedural fork
When someone reports a hateful comment or post, police first assess whether the conduct constitutes a criminal offence (for example under the Public Order Acts or communications offences) or whether it is a “non‑crime hate incident” — conduct perceived as motivated by hostility that does not meet the criminal threshold. Forces have formal procedures to record both hate crimes and non‑crime hate incidents and to allocate investigations according to risk and evidential thresholds [4] [5]. National guidance has long recognised the distinction: non‑crime hate incidents do not amount to crime but were recorded to build intelligence and guard against escalation [2].
2. Gathering evidence and assessing motivation
If a report meets the threshold for an investigation, officers collect the usual evidence: witness accounts, digital material, context and any prior behaviour. Local procedures set out how attending officers create incidents and hand them to investigative teams; forces use risk assessments and may escalate standard and medium‑risk investigations to specialist teams (Essex Police’s procedure is an example) [4]. The Crown Prosecution Service emphasises that police must investigate and obtain evidence to show a crime has been committed before a prosecution decision can follow [6].
3. Free speech, Article 10 and supervisory safeguards
Police guidance explicitly warns investigators to seek senior advice where complaints might be vexatious or politically motivated and to take care not to infringe Article 10 rights beyond what the law permits (College of Policing guidance) [3]. That guidance creates an institutional check: supervisors are expected to review whether an alleged offence genuinely meets criminal standards rather than policing “toxic culture war debates” [3] [1].
4. The recent policy shift on non‑crime hate incidents and what it changes
In October 2025 the Metropolitan Police announced it would no longer investigate non‑crime hate incidents, arguing the move would reduce ambiguity and let officers focus on matters meeting criminal thresholds [1] [2]. National bodies (NPCC and College of Policing) are reviewing the recording of NCHIs and interim reports have recommended stopping routine recording unless there is a clear risk of harm [7] [8]. This does not affect the obligation to investigate offences where criminal elements exist; it narrows routine police scrutiny of speech that is offensive but not criminal [1] [2].
5. How arrests and prosecutions actually happen
An arrest follows where officers have “reasonable grounds to believe” a criminal offence has been committed (for example an offence under the Public Order Act), based on evidence gathered [1] [6]. After arrest, investigators and the CPS examine the evidence and public interest factors before charging. Home Office data shows police assign outcomes to the majority of recorded hate crimes, and a minority remain under investigation at time of reporting, reflecting normal investigative timelines [9].
6. Public debate and competing perspectives
Some commentators argue police have become over‑zealous in policing online speech; others stress the need to protect vulnerable groups and prosecute real threats. Media outlets report that critics see recent arrests as examples of policing culture‑war debates, while police and some officials say they must interpret existing laws in a way that prevents real‑world harm [10] [1] [2]. The Metropolitan Police framed its change as reducing ambiguity and refocusing resources; critics fear under‑recording of patterns that can lead to escalation [1] [7].
7. Practical advice for people who experience hate speech
Victims and witnesses are advised to report incidents — police websites and independent portals (True Vision, local force pages) explain that reports will be recorded and forwarded for assessment, though investigation priority depends on whether a crime has occurred and on evidence availability [11] [12] [5]. Citizens Advice notes police usually investigate only when a crime has happened or there is repeated harassment [13].
Limitations and transparency: available sources do not provide a single, detailed step‑by‑step national checklist used in every force; procedures vary by force (local force FOI and College guidance show differences) and the national review of non‑crime hate incident recording is ongoing, so practice may change [4] [7].