This piece is based on publicly available information about the first hundred people charged with and produced at court for offences related to the riots starting on 30 July and up to 10 August. The information has been extracted from reports by Far-Right Criminals, an organisation which keeps a record of people convicted of far-right offences. Some additional material is included to provide necessary context or balance.
These 100 people may not be representative of the rioters, overall. They were all quickly identified, arrested and brought before the courts and so may be the ‘low-hanging’ fruit. More careful, or less readily identifiable offenders may be arrested in the coming months.
The focus is on those brought to court rather than those sentenced, to ensure a broader view of the offenders. It includes juveniles, who will be sentenced later and after social background reports have been prepared, and those who have pleaded ‘Not Guilty’ and for whom the trial date may be months or even years away.
Demography of the defendants
The average age of the defendants is 30. The youngest is 14 and the oldest 69. Two are in their 60s, six in their 50s, 16 in their 40s, 24 in their 30s and 34 in their 20s. In two cases the ages are not stated. Well over half (58%) are between 20 and 40 years of age. Five are under 18 (5%) of which two are 14. Other press reports indicate defendants, as young as 12, have been charged.
The ethnicity of those appearing in court is not recorded. The combination of racist offences, British names and some pictures in the press indicate all but two are white. Two (no pictures) with Asian names charged with counter-demonstration offences have pled not guilty. Only two defendants were women.
Nature of the described charges
The offences were not always well recorded. Sometimes the offence was described but the charge not specified. Sometimes the description mentioned other offences e.g. possession of drugs, but it is not clear if the person was also charged with that. Several were charged with more than one offence and overall, the number of charges added up to more than 100 offences.
Most charges (83) were for violent disorder. There were also 22 charges for possession of an offensive weapon though many more offence descriptions indicated the presence of some sort of weapon. For example, rocks were included as an offensive weapon on the charge sheet only occasionally yet were mentioned frequently in the offence descriptions.
Assaults on the police and other offences
There were eight charges of assault on a police officer (sometimes called an emergency worker) but these charges tended to be made for behaviour at the point of arrest or when the more serious charge of violent disorder was not used. So, attacks on police officers, acting as a protective cordon around asylum accommodation or a mosque, did not always result in an assault charge.
There were a handful of other offences including threatening behaviour and racially or religiously motivated threatening behaviour, criminal damage, and three of the cases related to social media activity. There were only five charges of theft and burglary (looting).
Sentencing the rioters
Nine people, all charged with violent disorder pled not guilty but there may be others; it is not always stated. These cases may take several months, possibly years, before they come to court. All those charged with violent disorder have been remanded in custody.
Twenty-six of those charged in this sample have been sentenced. Some are due to be sentenced this week but others at a later date, and in some cases a plea has yet to be lodged. All adults who pled guilty at the magistrates’ court (their offending was deemed sufficiently minor to be dealt with by the court) have been sentenced.
One man was fined for abusive words to the police following a drugs search, which prompted an altercation but was unconnected with the riots other than proximity. The man was fined £120, £85 costs and £48 victim surcharge. The other three received short custodial sentences – two months in one case, twelve weeks in another, and in the third case, four months plus three months for a further charge, both suspended for two years.
Of those sentenced in the crown and magistrates’ courts, 24 were sentenced to immediate custody. The longest sentence was 36 months for a single charge followed by 32 months, with a 6-month sentence to run concurrently for a further charge. The shortest sentence was for two months. Of the reminder 13 were sentenced to 24 months or over and eight sentenced to under 24 months. Although in this analysis the longest sentence has been for 36 months, there has been a sentence of 6 years reported.
Previous convictions and personal circumstances
In most cases (67) previous convictions were not noted in the press reports. Where recorded,12 had none and 21 had at least one previous conviction. Of those with previous convictions the offending was often similar, involving violence (including attempted murder) racial offending and assault on police. Some defendants were on bail for other offences or on prison licence at the time of the riots.
Most of those with previous convictions were heavily convicted. One had 71 previous court appearances for 122 offences and another 30 appearances for 55 offences. Ten plus convictions with over twenty offences was not uncommon. A few of the older men had had a longish break in their offending.
Employment is noted in only one case. Difficult personal circumstances are mentioned in 12 cases with mental health, child abuse and neglect, and problems with alcohol and drugs cited. Two had spent time in care.
Rioters’ motivation
Very little was said in court about offenders’ motivation. Given the behaviour of the crowd e.g. “white men surrounded a black man” or “shouting slogans associated with the English Defence League” and when asylum seeker hotels or mosques were attacked, a racist motivation was assumed. In a few cases the rioters were individually identified as chanting racist slogans.
None, in this sample, offered a defence of ‘citizen concern’ about immigration and asylum seekers and it may be that their solicitors counselled them that this defence was indefensible. Where a defendant (not in this sample) did try to claim “that he had been driven to attend the protests due to concerns over taxpayers’ money being wasted on people who had remained in this country after committing crimes”, he was roundly rebuked by the judge:
“You’ve got 10 aliases, four fictitious birth dates, you’re 51 years of age, you’ve been convicted of 170 offences, you been convicted of theft, arson, taking cars, handling stolen goods, obtaining by deception, burglary, dangerous driving and possessing bladed articles … sentences totalling 357 months in prison … [y]ou have no right whatever to say who should or should not be in this country”.
In such cases the least said about motivation is probably wise.
Representations to mitigate the behaviour focused on the argument that the defendant had been carried away in the moment or was disinhibited through drink e.g. “The chronic alcoholic had no knowledge of any organisation through social media. He holds no racist views, he did not go there to express as such”. In some cases, the potential for a disturbance drew them in. The impression gained is that quite a few of those involved in the disturbances ‘followed the noise’.
Some of those caught up in the riots maintained it was totally out of character: “his was wholly out of character and unexpected … He became involved, he was not forced to be involved … The mood began to change and others behaved in a disgraceful way. He joined in”.
In many cases, hatred of the police, although not a motivation for the rioters’ initial presence, clearly motivated subsequent violence. Either when the police were acting as a barrier between the intended target and the rioters, or for its own sake. Individual aggression towards the police was notable on arrest or being asked to desist “I hope your kids get raped – I hate the police” was one comment.
Online incitement to riot
All but three of those charged or convicted were physically present at the riots or caught nearby. The physically absent three were charged and sentenced for offences on social media. A 28-year-old man was sentenced to 20 months for ‘threatening abusive or insulting words’ having made several Facebook posts between 1 and 5 August with “the intention of sparking tensions while demonstrations were taking place”. His posts were about attacking an hotel accommodating asylum seekers: “[e]very man and their dog should be smashing f*** out Britannia Hotel.”
One 26-year-old man was sentenced to 36 months imprisonment for ‘inciting racial hatred’. He was urging that a hotel for asylum seekers be set alight – “100% the plan” and “reposted a screenshot of another message inciting action against a named immigration solicitor in Northampton”.
A third man aged 31 was sentenced to 12 weeks in prison for a Facebook post “that was grossly offensive, or of indecent, obscene or menacing character”. It included “emojis of a person of ethnic minority and a gun” following the police imposing a dispersal order. He had nine previous court appearances for 13 offences.
Difference from 2011 riots
The profile of the hundred charged and/ or convicted is very different to that of the 2011 riots. Then, 42% were white and 46% were black. Then as now most were male. In 2011 half were under 21 and just 4% over 40 (16% in this sample). 32 % were out of work and 42% of school age children were claiming free school meals. Many were failing or had failed at school and felt ‘alienated’ from mainstream ambitions and society.
The participants in the current riots are almost all white, older males. A significant number have criminal records, have health or addiction problems, are unemployed and likely to be living in poverty and on the margins of society, though this is less pronounced than in 2011 and many appear to be functioning reasonably well. 80% of adults in 2011 had criminal convictions. Even allowing for considerable under reporting to date, the current group is much more lightly convicted.
There is no evidence that social media is more important now than it was in 2011. It was prevalent then although Blackberry Messenger was the primary means of communication between rioters. Word of mouth on the street and group dynamics and incitement on the day remains a strong driver for the level and violence of the disturbances. What appears to be different this time, is that those inciting rioting on social media are more likely to be detected and prosecuted.
Summer 2024 rioters – influential factors
Last week I wrote about the pernicious influence of GB News and its presenters, especially Reform MPs, on the riots. Their interventions undermined police efforts to suppress the riots and justified the rioters. Whether their output directly contributed to the violence, it was part of a pro-rioting narrative in a mainstream news source. Moreover, they are using their influence, along with other prominent ring-wing commentators such as Stephen Yaxley-Lennon (Tommy Robinson) to promote the highly controversial premise that rioting is a rational and acceptable response to ‘concerns about immigration’ or ‘two-tier policing’.
While the ‘concerned citizen’ narrative does not stand up to scrutiny, we do not know whether those involved in attacking asylum seekers and Muslims are aware of its vacuity, or simply used it as an ‘excuse’ for rioting, or whether rioters sincerely believe it. Although the output of GB News is potentially dangerous, the extent of its influence or culpability, or that of other social media players, is unknown. Swift imprisonment may be necessary to protect the public now, but greater understanding of rioters’ motivation and the influences under which they operated will be necessary to prevent a reoccurrence.
More from Dr Stella Perrott:
