Starmer Accused of Hypocrisy Over Lucy Connolly Prosecution

Sir Keir Starmer has been accused of hypocrisy over the prosecution of Lucy Connolly on the eve of her release from prison. The Telegraph has more.

The Prime Minister supported the conviction of Mrs Connolly for inciting racial hatred over an expletive-ridden post on X after the Southport attacks, but it has emerged he had previously suggested that people who swiftly deleted offensive social media statements should not necessarily face criminal action.

On Thursday, Mrs Connolly will be released after being sentenced to 31 months in prison for posting the comments, which she deleted hours later.

The mother-of-one’s supporters claim she has been subjected to an unfairly long jail term and made a scapegoat for the rioting last summer.

Sir Keir has defended Mrs Connolly’s conviction, saying that while he was strongly in favour of free speech he was “equally against incitement to violence” against other people. He added: “I will always support the action taken by our police and courts to keep our streets and people safe.”

However, in 2013, when Director of Public Prosecutions, he introduced guidance for prosecutors to consider a more lenient approach towards suspects who “swiftly” deleted social media posts and expressed “genuine remorse”.

The guidance urged prosecutors to consider four factors where “a prosecution is unlikely to be both necessary and proportionate”.

These included if “swift and effective action has been taken by the suspect and/or others, for example service providers, to remove the communication in question or otherwise block access to it”.

Mrs Connolly was jailed for a post on the day three children were killed at a dance class in Southport, on Merseyside, urging followers to “set fire” to hotels that housed asylum seekers “for all I care”.

At the time, the childminder had about 9,000 followers on X. Her message was reposted 940 times and viewed 310,000 times before she deleted it three and a half hours later, saying she regretted it.

Sir Keir’s 2013 advice was caveated with a warning to prosecutors that it was “not an exhaustive list” of mitigating circumstances and that “each case must be considered on its own factors and its own individual merits”.

Legal experts who have followed Mrs Connolly’s case noted that the guidance suggested public order offences, such as inciting racial hatred, should be treated separately and suspects would not therefore necessarily benefit from the same protections.

Sir Keir followed up publication of the guidance with interviews in which he said: “There’s a lot of stuff out there that is highly offensive that is put out on a spontaneous basis that is quite often taken down pretty quickly, and the view is that those sort of remarks don’t necessarily need to be prosecuted.

“This is not a get out of jail card, but it is highly relevant. Stuff does go up on a Friday and Saturday night and come down the next morning.

“Now if that is the case a lot of people will say that shouldn’t have happened, the person has accepted it, but really you don’t need a criminal prosecution. It is a relevant factor.”

Worth reading in full.