Skip to content 
Lawdit Solicitors
The Court of Appeal has upheld a 31-month custodial sentence in R v Lucy Connolly [2025] EWCA Crim 657, dismissing arguments that the sentence was excessive and affirming the seriousness of offences under the Public Order Act 1986. This decision serves as a sobering reminder of the legal boundaries of free speech and the explosive impact of social media. The case has generated a great deal of interest and anger on both sides.
The Offence and Context ♖️
Lucy Connolly, 41, was charged with publishing or disseminating written content with the intent to incite racial hatred in violation of section 19(1) of the Public Order Act 1986. Following the horrific murder of three children in Southport on July 29, 2024, she sent a tweet to her 9,000 followers on X (formerly Twitter) that contained the offensive material.
In the tragic hours after the attack, Connolly posted the following tweet in response to baseless claims that the assailant was an undocumented immigrant:
“Mass deportation now. Set fire to all the fucking hotels full of the bastards for all I care. While you’re at it, take the treacherous government and politicians with them… If that makes me racist, so be it.”
Although the post was removed in a matter of hours, it had already received over 310,000 views and 940 reposts, which helped spark what the Crown subsequently characterised as a wave of racially charged public unrest throughout the United Kingdom.
Legal Structure 🧾
According to the pertinent clause in section 19(1), it is illegal to publish or disseminate written content that is derogatory, abusive, or threatening in the following situations:
- aims to incite hatred towards people of colour; or
- where it is likely to incite racial hatred, regardless of the motivation.
Connolly entered a guilty plea without providing a basis of plea because this case was decided on the intent limb (s.19(1)(a)).
The Act’s maximum penalty is seven years in prison.
Judgement and Appeal 🧑⚖️
Recorder HHJ Inman KC sentenced Connolly to 31 months in prison on October 31, 2024, citing:
- High culpability (Category A): due to the fact that the offence involved the intention to provoke severe violence.
- The tweet’s extensive distribution and the ensuing severe public uproar caused the greatest harm (Category 1).
For such an offence, the starting point for sentencing guidelines is three years in prison, with a range of two to six years. A guilty plea discount of 25% and mitigation resulted in a final sentence of 31 months.
Connolly raised two objections to the sentence:
- that she was wrongly classified as having culpability (arguing for Category B instead of A), and
- that the sentencing judge did not give mitigation—such as her history of mental illness and trauma from bereavement—enough consideration.
Evaluation of the Court of Appeal
The appeal was categorically denied by the court:
- They maintained that the tweet was not just “emotional hyperbole,” but rather an outright call for severe violence. It was impossible to write off the allusion to burning down politicians and hotels as satire or overblown grief.
- The Court accepted the testimony of Mr. Liam Muir, Connolly’s initial defence attorney, who had informed her of the consequences of entering a guilty plea under Category A. Her claim that she was unaware of the consequences of the sentence was deemed “incredible.”
- The panel also determined that Connolly’s lack of insight, prior racially offensive posts, and lack of remorse were more aggravating than mitigating factors.
The request for permission to appeal was turned down.
Legal Analysis
In four respects, this case sets a crucial precedent:
- Connolly’s remarks were determined to have the “intent” to incite racial hatred, even if they were posted in a fit of rage. This makes the threshold clear.
- confirms the use of Category A1 sentencing in cases involving online incitement: The tumultuous social environment and broad distribution were decisive.
- stresses individual accountability on social media: Considering the seriousness and scope of her remarks, the court did not give much weight to her claim of emotional distress.
- emphasises how incitement is handled with extreme gravity during periods of national turmoil.
Conclusion
R v. Connolly is a seminal case concerning the relationship between criminal incitement and free speech. In an age where viral tweets can incite real-world violence, the judgement underscores the accountability of individuals for the impact of their speech—especially when it promotes hatred during highly charged moments.
It serves as a reminder that although political expression and public grieving are protected, violent rhetoric and racial incitement are not.
If you or your organisation require legal advice on freedom of expression, online speech, or criminal liability under the Public Order Act 1986, please contact Lawdit Solicitors.
