The murder of Brianna Ghey was a hate crime

The cross-examinations revealed the hateful motivation behind the murder

(2nd Feb 2024) post-sentencing update: the judge found both offenders took part in the sadistic and transphobic murder. The judge satisfied to the criminal standard that Eddie Ratcliffe demonstrated actual hostility and that Scarlett Jenkinson shared it. My analysis is correct.

Last week, the two teenagers who took the life of our sibling, Brianna Ghey, were convicted of murder. The sadistic and transphobic killers will be sentenced to life imprisonment along with a lengthy minimum term.

I’m a trans woman and also a lawyer. I closely followed the case from pretrial hearings all the way to convictions. I’m glad the Crown Prosecution Service secured two convictions for Brianna, her family, and the community.

We were fortunate that the police were able to gain access to the killers’ phones; otherwise, the case might have been prosecuted less effectively, and there was a possibility that at least one of the killers could have escaped justice.

It’s sad that some persist in spreading doubt about the unequivocally hateful nature of the crime. I must set the record straight.

(This article is WIP, I will publish my full report soon.)

The triumphant transphobic media

A misleading piece by the Guardian’s North of England editor declared, [1]

What the activists did not know was that police by then had already started trawling through thousands of WhatsApp messages exchanged between the two teenage suspects before and after the murder. What they discovered was highly disturbing but not, they thought, a plot driven primarily by a hatred of Brianna’s transgender identity.

I’m not an activist, but of course we know “activist” is often a coded term for trans people. Yet, in July, I learned that the police had all the evidence to prove that the murder was a hate crime. They didn’t go to the pretrials, did they?

Patrick Hurst, PA Media is vile. He triumphantly reposted a transphobic bigot’s tweet “Every single vulture who leapt on this […] can hang their heads in shame.” with a link to the Guardian article. He also wrote Was Brianna murder transphobic hate crime?

The article is filled with Detective Mike Evans’s speculations. In February, the detective jumped to a conclusion and declared it was not a hate crime before his team examined the killers’ phones. These speculations were inconsistent with the prosecution’s case. Since then, he has changed his mind.

That’s media. Now, let’s look into the case.

Definitions of hate crimes

In English and Welsh criminal practices, there are two main definitions of hate crimes: one for investigative purposes and another for sentencing purposes.

According to Cheshire Police’s policy, any criminal offence perceived by the victim or any other person to be motivated by hostility against a person who is transgender (or perceived to be transgender) is considered a hate crime.

Imagine. You are abducted to a quiet park. A friend, who knows all your vulnerabilities suddenly shouts “gay!” A stranger stabs you. Do you perceive it as a hate crime against you?

The lack of empathy in some of the reporting I have seen is quite chilling. The victim knew it was a hate crime. Every member of the public knew it was a hate crime.

A complex case

The case was complex. It was crucial that the prosecutors sent both defendants to prison. Their hands were tied because one of the killers tried to pretend that his fitness to plead or to give evidence was diminished due to disability. The prosecutors exercised extreme caution. They simply presented the evidence to the jury and made virtually no additional comments.

The Sentencing Act 2020 sets out the framework for the sentencing of hate crimes in England. Section 66 — hostility — provides that the seriousness of an offence can be aggravated by hostility related to transgender identity. There are two sub-types of hostility: actual hostility demonstrated towards the victim for being (or being presumed to be) transgender, and hostile motivation towards transgender persons.

The prosecution faced no difficulty in proving that both killers had actual transphobic hostility toward Brianna, leaving no doubt that the murder was a hate crime.

The cross-examinations revealed a hostile motivation.

Eventually, both killers gave evidence. They blamed each other. During cross-examination, it became apparent that they could not deny their knowledge of each other’s hostile motivation towards transgender persons.

In the prosecution’s closing speech, it was suggested the killers encouraged each other to kill with hostile motivation towards transgender people in mind.

So there is evidence of both actual hostility and hostile motivation. It must be a hate crime.

The sentencing court is entitled to take their messages, hand-written plan and testimonies at face value and sentence them accordingly.

I’m sure the jury took them at face value. They delivered the verdict at 3:04 pm, the exact hour and minute when we lost Brianna.

Rest in peace, Brianna.

Update

On Thursday, while handling the application to lift reporting restrictions, the court described the murder as “dark thoughts and hateful messages became enacted in real life”.

[1] The article is not only misleading, but the paragraphs about the judge’s reaction to Jo Maugham’s tweets are also made up.

For any inquiries about the topic, or potential collaborations, please feel free to contact me on Twitter @ReactiveAshley.

This work is licensed under CC BY 4.0, and made available under the CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication. I dedicates the work to the public domain by waiving all of my rights to the work worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.