Going over the same ground again.....
My post was to try and get to the matter of *if* the reports turn out not to be true and there was no forcing of kissing or mention of sexuality, would this still be a homophobic attack purely because it was an attack on some people that happened to be lesbians, or is it AUTOMATICALLY a hate crime because of their sexuality.
***I am not, and most posters are not, questioning the facts of this case, just the possibilities as there is nothing proven here only victim reports which are being taken as the only version of truth at this time and rightly so.***
I want to understand where we are going here in terms of potentially having different levels of punishment depending on the group identity of victims and what proof is required to dish out said punishment, no matter how much these scumbags deserve it, it needs to be transparent and consistent. You have Jussie Smollet to thank for this cynicism.
Well, we won't know the exact details which will likely come out in the trial.
I haven't seen anything that casts any doubt on the reports, the police are calling it a homophobic attack, they're the ones with the evidence and probably the eyewitness statements and any CCTV evidence - they'll have charged the defendants accordingly based on the evidence, so at this time - there's nothing to suggest any of this is wrong, or the police have made any mistakes. However we'll have to wait until the trial to know for sure (if it's even publicised, as some of the defendants are under 18)
In terms of different punishments for different crimes, my understanding (which may well be wrong) is that the defendants were charged with robbery and aggravated GBH. Aggravated GBH usually carries with it a number of factors which make it worse than regular GBH, these include things where it may be racially or religiously motivated, motivated based on a sexual orientation or if the victim is disabled, there can be other factors such as a high degree of pre-meditation, being a gang leader and so on.
If it turns out, the reports are true - that two girls were on a bus together minding their own business, one happens to kiss the other - and some lads on the bus decide to start throwing homophobic insults at them, which ultimately ends up with the women in question taking a beating, then it quite clearly gets it over the line as aggravated GBH.
The police would need to prove to the CPS that the aggravating factors (the homophobic abuse) were present, because if they weren't any lawyer worth his salt would be all over it at trial and the whole case could collapse. If the reports are false and the women were essentially randomly targeted and no homophobic abuse was given, then it wouldn't be aggravated GBH, it would be GBH, it's not a homophobic hate crime if the victim just so happens to be gay - there has to be an element of aggravation to take it to the next level, in terms of the charging guidelines.
The aggravating factor will be considered at the trial and in sentencing if found guilty and probably will result in a harsher punishment being applied, because of the higher level of culpability, essentially - the fact they were essentially attacked for being lesbians (which is why the defendants would have been charged with that offence) is a more serious crime, than if they'd just attacked some random women, because then it wouldn't be aggravated GBH.
Think about it another way;
Crime #1. Some random blokes get on a bus and randomly beat up a black guy, then steal his phone and run off.
Crime #2. Some random blokes get on a bus, start throwing racial insults at a black guy, beat him up whilst screaming the N word at him, steal his phone and run off.
Crime 1 would be GBH, Crime 2 would be aggravated GBH, because it carries with it an additional level of malice that was not present in crime 1 (The fact it was preceded by racial insults)
For me, it seems logical to apply a tougher sentence for crime 2 than 1, because crime 2 is essentially more serious, because it contains racial elements - which I think makes sense from a legislative position.