Hate crimes England and Wales
Source: data.gov.uk (2015-10-22)

Hate crimes recorded by the police in England and Wales by police force area.  ‘Hate crime’ is any criminal offence committed against a person or property that is motivated by hostility towards someone based on their disability, race, religion, gender-identity or sexual orientation, whether perceived to be so by the victim or any other person.

Hate Crime, England and Wales, 
2014/15 
 
Hannah Corcoran, Deborah Lader and Kevin Smith 
 
Statistical Bulletin 05/15 
13th October 2015 
 

 
i 
Important information 
In accordance with the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007, statistics based on police 
recorded crime data have been assessed against the Code of Practice for Official Statistics and found 
not to meet the required standard for designation as National Statistics. The full assessment report 
can be found on the UK Statistics Authority website. Alongside the Crime in England and Wales, Year 
Ending March 2015 release, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) published a progress update on 
actions taken in addressing the requirements set out by the Authority. Further information is provided 
in the Hate Crimes Data Quality section (Annex A).   
Data from the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) continue to be badged as National 
Statistics. 
 
For further information about police recorded crime statistics, please email: 
xxx@xxx.xx or write to: 
Crime and Policing Statistics, 1st Floor, Peel Building, 2 Marsham Street, London, SW1P 4DF 
 
For further information about the Crime Survey for England and Wales, please email 
xxx@xxx.xx  or write to:  
Crime Statistics and Analysis, Office for National Statistics, Room 4200E, Segensworth Road, 
Titchfield, PO15 5RR 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Home Office Responsible Statistician: 
David Blunt, Chief Statistician and Head of Profession for Statistics 
Contact via xxx@xxx.xx 
 
 
 
 
 
This statistical bulletin is produced to the highest professional standards and is free from political 
interference. It has been produced by statisticians working in the Home Office Crime and Policing 
Analysis Unit and the Office for National Statistics. It has been produced in accordance with the Home 
Office’s statement of compliance with the Code of Practice for Official Statistics, which covers Home 
Office policy on revisions and other matters. The Chief Statistician, as Head of Profession, reports to 
the National Statistician with respect to all professional statistical matters and oversees all Home 
Office National Statistics products with respect to the Code, being responsible for their timing, content 
and methodology. 

 
ii 
Contents 
Page 
Conventions used in figures and tables ............................................................................................ iii 
List of figures and tables ..................................................................................................................... iv 
Key points 
 ....................................................................................................................................... 1 
1 
Introduction .................................................................................................................. 2 
1.1 
Overview .............................................................................................................. 2 
2 
Police recorded hate crime ......................................................................................... 4 
2.1 
Prevalence and Trends ....................................................................................... 4 
2.2 
More detailed hate crime data from the Home Office Data Hub ......................... 8 
2.3  
Crime outcomes ................................................................................................ 11 
3 
Racist Incidents ......................................................................................................... 13 
4 
Hate crime from the CSEW ....................................................................................... 14 
4.1 Overall hate crime .................................................................................................. 14 
4.2 Victimisation by personal and household characteristics ...................................... 16 
4.3 Repeat victimisation ............................................................................................... 17 
4.4 Reporting hate crime ............................................................................................. 18 
4.5 Hate crime by motivating factor ............................................................................. 19 
4.6 Additional information from the CSEW  ................................................................. 21 
Further Information ............................................................................................................................. 24 
Annex A – Hate crime data sources and quality .............................................................................. 25 
Introduction .................................................................................................................. 25 
Police recorded crime data sources and validation process ....................................... 25 
Crime Survey for England and Wales.......................................................................... 26 
Understanding differences between the CSEW and police recorded crime................ 27 
 

 
iii 
Conventions used in figures and tables 
Table abbreviations 
‘0’ 
indicates no response in that particular category or less than 0.5% (this does not apply when 
percentages are presented to one decimal point). 
‘n/a’ indicates that the CSEW question was not applicable or not asked in that particular year. 
‘-’ 
indicates that for recorded crime percentage changes are not reported because the base 
number of offences is less than 50, for the CSEW indicates that data are not reported because 
the unweighted base is less than 50. 
‘..’ 
indicates for police recorded crime that data are not available. 
Unweighted base 
All CSEW percentages and rates presented in the tables are based on data weighted to compensate 
for differential non response. Tables show the unweighted base which represents the number of 
people/households interviewed in the specified group. 
Percentages 
Row or column percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding. 
Most CSEW tables present cell percentages where the figures refer to the percentage of 
people/households/crime incidents who have the attribute being discussed and the complementary 
percentage, to add to 100%, is not shown. 
A percentage may be quoted in the text for a single category that is identifiable in the tables only by 
summing two or more component percentages. In order to avoid rounding errors, the percentage has 
been recalculated for the single category and therefore may differ by one percentage point from the 
sum of the percentages derived from the tables. 
‘No answers’ (missing values) 
All CSEW analysis excludes don’t know/refusals unless otherwise specified. 
Numbers of CSEW incidents 
Estimates are rounded to the nearest 10,000.

 
iv 
 
List of tables and figures 
1 
Introduction .................................................................................................................. 2 
Table 1 
The five racially or religiously aggravated offences and their non-racially or 
religiously aggravated equivalents ................................................................................. 3 
2 
Police recorded hate crimes ....................................................................................... 4 
Table 2 
Hate crimes recorded by police by monitored strand, 2011/12 to 2014/15 ................... 4 
Figure 2.1 
Number of racially or religiously aggravated offences by month, April 2013 to 
March 2015. ................................................................................................................... 6 
Figure 2.2 
Indexed trends in the number of assault with/without injury, public fear, alarm or 
distress (racially or religiously aggravated and non-aggravated equivalents) 
offences, April 2013 to March 2015 ............................................................................... 7 
 
Figure 2.3 
Distribution of offences flagged as hate crimes, 2014/15 (for 22 forces in the 
Data Hub) ....................................................................................................................... 9 
Figure 2.4 
Breakdown of hate crimes and overall recorded crime by selected offence 
types, 2014/15 (for 22 forces in the Data Hub) ............................................................ 10 
Figure 2.5  
Breakdown of hate crime by selected offence types and monitored strand, 
2014/15 (for 22 forces in the Data Hub), ..................................................................... 11 
Figure 2.6  
Percentage of racially or religiously aggravated and non-aggravated equivalent 
offences resulting in charge/summons, by offence type, 2014/15 .............................. 12 
3 
Racist incidents ......................................................................................................... 13 
Figure 3.1 
Number of racist incidents recorded by police (excluding British Transport 
Police), England and Wales, 2009/10 to 2014/15 ....................................................... 13 
4 
Hate crime from the CSEW ....................................................................................... 14 
Figure 4.1 
Number of estimated incidents of hate crimes with confidence intervals, 
2012/13 to 2014/15 CSEW  ......................................................................................... 14 
Figure 4.2 
Percentage of victims who were victimised more than once in the previous year, 
2012/13 to 2014/15 CSEW  ......................................................................................... 18 
Figure 4.3 
Victim satisfaction with the police, 2012/13 to 2014/15 CSEW ................................... 22 
Figure 4.4 
Emotional impact of hate crime incident, 2012/13 to 2014/15 CSEW  ........................ 23 
 
Table 3  
Percentage of hate crime incidents, by type of offence, 2012/13 to 2014/15 
CSEW .......................................................................................................................... 16 
Table 4  
Percentage of CSEW hate crime incidents that came to the attention of the 
police, CSEW ............................................................................................................... 19 
Table 5  
Percentage of adults aged 16 and over who were victims of racially-motivated 
hate crime and all CSEW crime, by ethnic group, 2012/13 to 2014/15, CSEW .......... 20 

 
1 
 
Key points 
Police recorded crime 
 
In 2014/15, there were 52,528 hate crimes recorded by the police, an increase of 18 per cent  
compared with the 44,471 hate crimes recorded in 2013/14, of which: 
 
42,930 (82%) were race hate crimes; 
 
5,597 (11%) were sexual orientation hate crimes; 
 
3,254 (6%) were religion hate crimes; 
 
2,508 (5%) were disability hate crimes; and 
 
605 (1%) were transgender hate crimes. 
It is possible for one hate crime offence to have more than one motivating factor which is why 
the above numbers sum to more than 52,528 and 100 per cent. 
 
There were increases in offences recorded for all five of the monitored hate crime strands (race, 
religion, sexual orientation, disability and transgender identity) between 2013/14 and 2014/15. 
 
As stated by the Office for National Statistics (ONS), action taken by police forces to improve 
their compliance with the National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS) has led to improved 
recording of crime over the last year, especially for violence against the person offences. 
Together with a greater awareness of hate crime, and improved willingness of victims to come 
forward, this is likely to be a factor in the increase in hate crimes recorded by the police in 
2014/15 compared with the previous year. 
Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW)  
 
Based on combined data from the 2012/13 to 2014/15 CSEW, there were an estimated 222,000 
hate crimes on average per year for the five monitored strands.1  
 
The most commonly reported motivating factor in these hate crime incidents was race, with an 
average of 106,000 incidents a year according to the 2012/13 to 2014/15 surveys. The second 
most common motivating factor was disability (70,000 incidents per year).  
 
Respondents to the combined 2012/13 to 2014/15 CSEW stated that 48 per cent of hate crimes 
came to the attention of the police, higher than for overall CSEW crime (40%). The main reason 
is likely to be the difference in the types of crime. For example, 49 per cent of hate crime 
incidents were for violence, compared with only 19 per cent of overall CSEW crime. Conversely, 
only 13 per cent of hate crime incidents were theft, compared with 19 per cent of overall CSEW 
crime. Reporting rates of violence from the survey are higher than for theft (49% and 40% 
respectively in the 2014/15 CSEW). 
 
 
Hate crime victims were less likely to be satisfied by the police handling of the incident, 52 per 
cent being very or fairly satisfied compared with 73 per cent for crime overall.  
                                                        
1 The five monitored strands are: race, religion, sexual orientation, disability and gender-identity. See the 
Introduction of this report for more information. 

 
2 
 
1 Introduction 
1.1  OVERVIEW 
This publication provides information on the number of hate crimes recorded by the police in England 
and Wales in 2014/15 and the number of hate crimes reported by respondents to the combined 
2012/13, 2013/14 and 2014/15 Crime Surveys for England and Wales (CSEW).  
Hate crimes recorded by the police 
Hate crime is defined as ‘any criminal offence which is perceived, by the victim or any other person, to 
be motivated by hostility or prejudice towards someone based on a personal characteristic.’ This 
common definition was agreed in 2007 by the police, Crown Prosecution Service, Prison Service (now 
the National Offender Management Service) and other agencies that make up the criminal justice 
system. There are five centrally monitored strands of hate crime: 
 
race or ethnicity; 
 
religion or beliefs; 
 
sexual orientation; 
 
disability; and 
 
transgender identity. 
 
Hate crimes are a subset of notifiable crimes that are recorded by the police and make up around one 
per cent of all crimes (based on police recorded crime figures for 2014/15, see Crime in England and 
Wales, Year Ending March 2015). 
In the process of recording a crime, police can flag an offence as being motivated by one or more of 
the five monitored strands above (for example, an offence can be motivated by hostility towards the 
victim’s race and religion). Figures in this bulletin show both how many hate crime offences the police 
recorded, and how many motivating factors these offences covered (for more information see Annex 
A).  
Further information on how the police record hate crime can be found in the Hate Crime Operational 
Guidance2 publication. Around five per cent of hate crime offences in 2014/15 are estimated to have 
involved more than one motivating factor3, the majority of these were hate crimes related to both race 
and religion. 
Hate crimes and racially or religiously aggravated offences 
There are some offences in the main police recorded crime collection which have a specific racially or 
religiously motivated version. These are defined by statute and constitute a set of offences which are 
distinct from their non-racially or religiously aggravated equivalents (the full list of these is shown in 
Table 1). These racially or religiously aggravated offences are by definition (see above) hate crimes.  
However, the hate crime collection on which the majority of the bulletin is based has a wider coverage 
of race and religious hate crime. This is because the police can identify any offence as a hate crime, 
not just those for which there is a separate racially or religiously aggravated offence for the police to 
record against. Therefore, the number of race or religious hate crimes in this bulletin will be greater 
than the total number of police recorded racially or religiously aggravated offences.  
 
 
                                                        
2 http://www.report-it.org.uk/files/hate_crime_operational_guidance.pdf 
3 Estimation from 22 Home Office Data Hub forces who supplied suitable data, see section 2.2 for more 
information on the Home Office Data Hub. 

Introduction 
 
3 
 
Table 1: The five racially or religiously aggravated offences and their non-racially or religiously 
aggravated equivalents 
 
 
Source: Police recorded crime, Home Office. 
 
 
Racist incidents recorded by the police 
This release contains figures on the number of racist incidents reported to police forces in England 
and Wales (excluding British Transport Police). A ‘racist incident’ is any incident, including any crime, 
which is perceived by the victim or any other person to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice based 
on a person’s race or perceived race. 
Racist incidents can include notifiable offences, non-notifiable offences (e.g. some types of anti-social 
behaviour), incidents that were not subsequently recorded as crimes and ‘cancelled or transferred 
records’ (formerly referred to as no crimes)4. Conversely, certain race hate crimes may not have been 
initially recorded as racist incidents if the racial motivation was not immediately apparent. For these 
reasons, the racist incidents total does not match the race hate crimes total. 
Overview of the Crime Survey for England and Wales 
The Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) is a face-to-face victimisation survey in which 
adults aged 16 and over resident in households in England and Wales are asked about their 
experiences of crime in the 12 months prior to interview5. Due to the low volume of hate crime 
incidents in the sample survey, the figures are not sufficiently robust to report for a single year of the 
CSEW. Data from three survey years have therefore been combined to give larger sample sizes, 
increasing the number of incidents available for analysis. For the latest time period, data have been 
combined for the 2012/13, 2013/14 and 2014/15 CSEW6; this includes incidents experienced by 
respondents between March 2011 and February 2015. Figures reported in this section are 12-month 
averages of the estimates from the three survey years and so are comparable with 12-month CSEW 
estimates presented elsewhere in this and other crime statistics bulletins. 
The coverage of the CSEW is limited to crimes which involve a specific identifiable victim, for example 
where an individual has been assaulted, a household has had property stolen or vandalised. The 
survey excludes other crime where a specific victim is more difficult to identify, for example, public 
order offences without a specific targeted victim. Such crimes (if reported) will, however, be included in 
the police recorded crime data. 
A relatively small number of respondents to the survey are victims of hate crime and as a result the 
margins of error around the estimates for hate crime are large. They do, however, provide context to 
the police recorded crime statistics.  
 
                                                        
4 A cancelled or transferred record occurs when the police have originally recorded an offence, but have 
subsequently determined that the crime did not take place, or was recorded in error.  
5 See Section 2.4 in ONS’s User Guide to Crime Statistics for England and Wales for details of reference periods. 
6 See Annex A for more information on the 3-year dataset. 
Offence codeOffence
Offence code Offence
8P
Racially or religiously aggravated assault with injury
8N
Assault with injury 
105B
Racially or religiously aggravated assault without injury
105A
Assault without Injury
8M
Racially or religiously aggravated harassment 
8L
Harassment 
9B
Racially or religiously aggravated public fear, alarm or distress
9A
Public fear, alarm or distress
58J
Racially or religiously aggravated other criminal damage
58A
Criminal damage to a dwelling
58B
Criminal damage to a building other than a dwelling
58C
Criminal damage to a vehicle
58D
Other criminal damage
Racially or Religiously Aggravated
Non-Racially or Religiously Aggravated Equivalent

 
4 
 
2 Police recorded hate crime 
2.1 PREVALENCE AND TRENDS 
There were 52,528 hate crimes recorded by the police in England and Wales in 2014/15, an increase 
of 18 per cent compared with 2013/14 (44,471 offences; see Table 2).  
Table 2: Hate crimes recorded by the police by monitored strand, 2011/12 to 2014/15 
 
 
Source: Police recorded crime, Home Office.  
See Bulletin Tables for detailed footnotes. 
 
Table 2 also shows the number of hate crimes broken down by monitored strand. It is possible for a 
crime to have more than one motivating factor (for example an offence may be motivated by hostility 
towards the victim’s race and religion). Thus, as well as recording the overall number of hate crimes, 
the police also collect data on the number of motivating factors by strand as shown in Table 2. For this 
reason, the above numbers sum to more than 52,528 and 100 per cent. 
In 2014/15, of the 52,528 hate crimes: 
 
42,930 (82%) were race hate crimes; 
 
5,597 (11%) were sexual orientation hate crimes; 
 
3,254 (6%) were religion hate crimes; 
 
2,508 (5%) were disability hate crimes; and 
 
605 (1%) were transgender hate crimes. 
There were increases in all five of the centrally monitored strands between 2013/14 and 2014/15 
(Table 2).  
The Office for National Statistics (ONS) has attributed recent increases in some categories of police 
recorded crime to improvements in police recording rather than a real increase in offences7. For 
                                                        
7 See http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/crime-stats/crime-statistics/year-ending-march-2015/index.html  
Numbers and percentages
England and Wales, recorded crime
Hate crime strand
2011/12
2012/13
2013/14
2014/15
% change 
2013/14 to 
2014/15
Race
 35,944 
 35,845 
 37,466 
 42,930 
15
Religion
 1,618 
 1,572 
 2,269 
 3,254 
43
Sexual orientation
 4,345 
 4,241 
 4,584 
 5,597 
22
Disability
 1,748 
 1,911 
 2,006 
 2,508 
25
Transgender
 313 
 364 
 557 
 605 
9
Total number of motivating factors
 43,968 
 43,933 
 46,882 
 54,894 
17
Total number of offences
 N/A 
42,255
 44,471 
52,528
18

Police recorded hate crimes 
5 
 
example, there was a 23 per cent increase in the overall number of police recorded violence against 
the person offences between 2013/14 and 2014/15 while the Crime Survey for England and Wales 
estimates for violent crime showed no statistically significant change in this period. Work recently 
undertaken by the National Police Chiefs Council indicated little change in the level of violent incidents 
coming to the attention of the police at the same time that the number of recorded offences was 
increasing. Just under a third (30%) of police recorded hate crime is for violence against the person 
offences (based on 22 police forces who submitted data via the Home Office Data Hub, see Section 
2.3 for more detail), so any changes in recording practices may be a factor in the trend in overall hate 
crime. An additional cause of the rise in hate crime may be an improved identification of motivating 
factors behind an offence. 
There has been some evidence and anecdotal reports8 to suggest that the increases in race and 
religious hate crimes may be partly due to higher levels of hate crime following specific highly 
publicised incidents (or trigger events9,10), rather than solely due an improvement in the identification 
of offences as hate crimes. This is discussed in more detail below. 
Race and religious hate crimes 
The number of race hate crimes increased by 15 per cent (up 5,464, to 42,930 offences; Table 2) 
between 2013/14 and 2014/15. Over the same period, religious hate crime increased by 43 per cent 
(up 985 to 3,254 offences; Table 2).  
As mentioned in the Introduction, the police have the option to record some offences as racially or 
religiously aggravated. While not covering all hate crime offences, in practice the majority of race or 
religious hate crimes that the police record will come under one of these aggravated offence codes. As 
the majority (79%) of race and religion hate crimes are recorded using the aggravated offence 
categories highlighted in Table 1, the overall level of race and religion hate crimes will be affected 
similarly.  
The data the Home Office receives from the police in the main police recorded crime return for these 
offences are available on a monthly basis11, allowing the in-year trend in these offences to be seen 
around the time of particular incidents. Figure 2.1 shows, for example: 
 a peak in July 2013 in racially or religiously aggravated offences following the Lee Rigby 
murder, 
 a rise in racially or religiously aggravated offences in July 2014 followed by a fall in August, 
suggesting little effect of the conflict in Israel and Gaza in July/August 2014, 
 that despite reports claiming an increase in hate crime following incidents such as the release of 
the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham  in August 2014 or the 
Charlie Hebdo shooting in January 2015, Figure 2.1 does not show a clear spike around these 
times. 
 
 
 
                                                        
8 For example, there was a rise in racially and religiously aggravated offences following the murder of Lee Rigby 
in May 2013 – see https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/hate-crimes-england-and-wales-2013-to-2014 
9 https://cst.org.uk/news/blog/2015/02/05/antisemitic-incidents-report-shows-record-uk-high-in-2014 
10 http://news.met.police.uk/news/met-s-response-to-rise-in-islamophobic-hate-crime-in-london-128144 
11 Although data from the main police recorded crime collection are sent to the Home Office broken down by 
month, the data are only quality assured with police forces on a quarterly basis. 

Hate Crimes, England and Wales, 2014/15 
6 
 
Figure 2.1: Number of racially or religiously aggravated offences by month, April 2013 to March 
2015  
 
 
Source: Police recorded crime, Home Office 
The improvement in the recording of offences by the police was mentioned above as a possible factor 
for the increase in police recorded hate crime. The increase in racially or religiously aggravated 
offences between February and July 2014 seen in Figure 2.1 matches the general trends seen in 
police recorded violence and public fear alarm or distress offences over the same time period. This 
can be seen in Figure 2.2, where indexed trends are presented for assault with/without injury, public 
fear alarm or distress and their racially or religiously aggravated equivalent offences. The chart shows 
that these three crime types track each other relatively well over the last two years. As shown later in 
Section 2.2, almost 90 per cent of overall hate crimes are violence against the person (which includes 
assault with/without injury) and public fear alarm or distress offences.  
 
 
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
Number of offences 
Lee Rigby murder
Conflict in 
Israel and 
Gaza
Charlie 
Hebdo 
shooting
Publication 
of Jay report 
(Rotherham)

Police recorded hate crimes 
7 
 
Figure 2.2: Indexed trends in the number of assault with/without injury, public fear, alarm or 
distress (racially or religiously aggravated and non-aggravated equivalents) offences, April 
2013 to March 2015 
 
Source: Police recorded crime, Home Office 
In the last quarterly release, ONS stated “Action taken by police forces to improve their compliance 
with the National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS) is likely to have resulted in the increase in the 
number of offences recorded. It is thought that recording improvements are more likely to affect 
relatively less serious violent offences and explains the larger increase in the sub-category "violence 
without injury" compared with "violence with injury". ONS has also been informed there has generally 
been little change in the volume of “calls for service” related to violent crime in the year ending March 
2015 compared with the previous year. Calls for service refer to emergency and non-emergency calls 
from members of the public and referrals from partner agencies (such as education, health, and social 
services) for police to attend an incident or investigate a case. This, along with the evidence from the 
CSEW, suggests the rise in recorded violence against the person is largely due to process 
improvements rather than a genuine rise in violent crime.” 
 
The trends seen in Figure 2.2 fit with the improvements in crime recording as being the main factor for 
the increase in police recorded hate crimes over the last year. However, it is important to recognise 
that improved recording may not be the only reason, and there could be an element of a real increase 
in police recorded hate crime.  
Race hate crime was the most commonly recorded strand of hate crime in all 44 police forces. For 41 
forces, religious hate crime was either the third or fourth most commonly recorded strand (Appendix 
Table 2.01). Hate crime data by police force area for 2011/12 to 2013/14 can be found on the Home 
Office open data page. 
The Home Office also collects data on the number of racist incidents (that is notifiable offences as well 
as incidents which do not amount to a crime in law) recorded by police, more details on these are 
included in Chapter 3.  
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Indexed trends, April 2013 = 100
Assault with/without injury
Public fear, alarm or distress
Racially or religiously aggravated assault/ public fear offences 

Hate Crimes, England and Wales, 2014/15 
8 
 
Sexual orientation, disability and transgender identity  
In 2014/15, there were 5,597 sexual orientation hate crimes, 2,508 disability hate crimes and 605 
transgender identity hate crimes. 
As mentioned above for race or religiously aggravated offences, recording improvements are likely to 
be a factor in the increase in offences recorded by the police. This is also the case for increases in 
disability, sexual orientation and transgender identity hate crime12. The increase across all three 
strands (25% for disability, 22% for sexual orientation and 9% for transgender) may suggest improved 
identification of hate crime as a factor, but it is possible that some of the increase is real. These could 
be genuine increases in hate crimes or increases in the numbers of victims coming forward to report a 
hate crime. 
For 38 police forces, sexual orientation hate crime was the second most commonly recorded hate 
crime. In the majority (41) of forces transgender identity hate crime was the least commonly recorded 
hate crime (Appendix Table 2.01).  
2.2 MORE DETAILED HATE CRIME DATA FROM THE HOME OFFICE DATA HUB 
The Home Office are continuing to implement an improved data collection system called the Data Hub 
which is designed to streamline the process by which forces submit data. The Home Office Data Hub 
is replacing the old system with automated capturing of record level crime data via direct extracts from 
forces' own crime recording systems. This allows the police to provide more detailed information to the 
Home Office enabling a greater range of analyses to be carried out. The migration to the Data Hub is 
ongoing and for forces providing data via the Data Hub, it is possible to exploit this richer data and 
conduct a more in depth analysis of hate crime offences.  
Twenty-two police forces13 (accounting for 54% of the total number of hate crimes recorded in 2014/15 
and including the Metropolitan Police Service) provided suitable hate crime data through the Data Hub 
for 2014/15. However, it should be noted that the analysis in this section may not be representative of 
all forces in England and Wales.  
Hate crimes by type of offence 
Using the Data Hub it is possible to examine which specific types of offence have been flagged as 
hate crimes. The available data show that for the 22 police forces analysed (Appendix Table 2.02): 
 Fifty-nine per cent of hate crimes were public order offences, with the vast majority of these 
(98%) being public fear, alarm or distress; 
 thirty per cent were violence against the person offences, of which 30 per cent were violence 
with injury with the remaining 70 per cent being violence without injury offences; and 
 seven per cent were criminal damage/arson offences while the remaining three per cent were 
other notifiable offences. (Figure 2.3). 
 
 
                                                        
12 In addition to ONS’s statement previously given, anecdotal evidence provided by some forces have mentioned 
there have been drives to improve the reporting and the recording of hate crime, as well as further training of 
staff.  
13 The following forces submitted suitable data via the Data Hub in 2014/15: Avon and Somerset, Bedfordshire, 
Cambridgeshire, Cheshire, Cleveland, Derbyshire, Devon and Cornwall, Dorset, Durham, Gloucestershire, 
Lincolnshire, Merseyside, Metropolitan Police, Norfolk, Northumbria, North Yorkshire, South Yorkshire, 
Staffordshire, Suffolk, Surrey, Thames Valley, West Mercia.  

Police recorded hate crimes 
9 
 
Figure 2.3: Distribution of offences flagged as hate crimes, 2014/15 (for 22 forces in the Data 
Hub) 
 
Source: Police recorded crime, Home Office 
The above percentages of each offence type were similar to the findings for the 18 Data Hub forces 
analysed in 2013/14.  
By way of comparison, Figure 2.4 shows that in 2014/15, the proportion of overall crime accounted for 
by these categories was very different: 
 public order offences accounted for four per cent of all notifiable offences compared with 59 per 
cent of hate crime; 
 violence against the person accounted for 22 per cent of all offences compared with 30 per cent 
of hate crimes.  
 
 
 
59%
30%
7%
3%
Public order offences
Violence against the 
person
Criminal Damage and 
Arson
Other notifiable offences

Hate Crimes, England and Wales, 2014/15 
10 
 
Figure 2.4: Breakdown of hate crimes and overall recorded crime by selected offence types, 
2014/15 (for 22 forces in the Data Hub) 
 
 
Source: Police recorded crime, Home Office 
A smaller proportion of violent hate crimes tend to result in injury compared with overall violent crime:  
70 per cent of police recorded violence hate crimes were violence without injury (Appendix Table 2.02) 
compared with 52 per cent of overall violent offences.  
Figure 2.5 shows the proportion of offence types that made up each monitored strand. The two most 
common offence types associated with hate crime for all strands were public order offences and 
violence against the person without injury.  
 
 
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Public order
Violence against the 
person
Criminal damage and 
arson
Other notifiable 
offences
Percentage
Hate Crime
Overall recorded crime

Police recorded hate crimes 
11 
 
Figure 2.5: Breakdown of hate crime by selected offence types and monitored strand, 2014/15 
(for 22 forces in the Data Hub). 
 
 
Source: Police recorded crime, Home Office 
 
2.3 CRIME OUTCOMES 
The Home Office also collects information on the outcomes of police recorded offences, including 
those that are flagged as being racially or religiously aggravated. For more information on outcomes 
see Crime Outcomes in England and Wales 2014/15.  
Figure 2.6 shows that racially or religiously aggravated offences were more likely to be dealt with by a 
charge/summons than their non-aggravated counterparts. In particular: 
 thirty per cent of racially or religiously aggravated public fear, alarm and distress offences were 
dealt with by charge/summons compared with 24 per cent of the non-aggravated equivalent 
offences, 
 thirty four per cent of assault offences were dealt with by charge/summons compared with 21 
per cent of non-aggravated assaults, 
 twenty one per cent of criminal damage offences resulted in charge/summons, while only nine 
per cent of non-aggravated criminal damage offences were dealt with in this way. 
 
 
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Race
Religion
Sexual 
orientation
Disability
Transgender
Total hate 
crime
Other notifiable offences
Criminal damage and arson
Violence against the person 
without injury
Violence against the person with 
injury
Public order offences

Hate Crimes, England and Wales, 2014/15 
12 
 
Figure 2.6:  Percentage of racially or religiously aggravated and non-aggravated equivalent 
offences resulting in charge/summons, by offence type, 2014/15 
 
Source: Police recorded crime, Home Office 
 
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Public fear, alarm distress 
offences
Assault with/without injury
Criminal damage
Percentage
Racially or religiously aggravated offences
Non-aggravated equivalent offences

 
13 
 
3  Racist Incidents 
A ‘racist incident’ is defined as any incident, including any crime, which is perceived to be racist by the 
victim or any other person. The coverage is wider than the race hate crime collection as non-notifiable 
offences, as well as notifiable offences, are included.  
 
In 2014/15, there were 53,902 racist incidents recorded by the 43 police forces in England and Wales 
(racist incident data excludes the British Transport Police). The number of racist incidents recorded by 
police remained relatively stable between 2011/12 and 2013/14, before increasing by 10 per cent in 
2014/15 (Figure 3.1; Appendix Table 3.01). It is likely, that along with police recorded hate crimes, that 
improved recording and identification of racist incidents is a factor behind the increase seen in the last 
year. Furthermore, while incidents are recorded under the National Standard for Incident Recording in 
accordance with the same ‘victim focused’ approach that applies for recorded crime, it is known that 
there are substantial variations between police forces and over time in how they record racist 
incidents. Given the greater quality, development and depth of the police recorded hate crime, we are 
considering future plans for the racist incident collection.  
 
 
Figure 3.1: Number of racist incidents recorded by police (excluding British Transport Police), 
2009/10 to 2014/15 
 
 
Source: Police recorded incidents, Home Office 
 
 
 
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
2013/14
2014/15
Number of incidents

 
14 
 
4 Hate crime from the CSEW 
4.1 OVERALL HATE CRIME 
 
According to the combined 2012/13 to 2014/15 CSEW, there were around 222,000 incidents of hate 
crime a year, representing around three per cent of crime overall in the CSEW (7,530,000 incidents)14. 
This compares with the finding in Chapter 2 that around one per cent of police recorded crime was 
flagged as a hate crime. 
 
Of the monitored strands asked about in the 2012/13 to 2014/15 CSEW (race, religion, sexual 
orientation, disability and gender-identity), the strand most commonly perceived as an offender’s 
motivation for committing a crime was the offender’s attitude to the victim’s race (around 106,000 
incidents on average a year). The monitored strand least commonly perceived as an offender’s 
motivation for committing a crime was the victim’s gender-identity (the number of CSEW respondents 
who were victims of this type of hate crime was too low to provide a robust estimate)  (Appendix Table 
4.01). 
 
Figure 4.1: Number of estimated incidents of hate crimes with confidence intervals, 2012/13 to 
2014/15 CSEW 
 
 
Source: Crime Survey for England and Wales, Office for National Statistics 
Note: Figures for all hate crime do not equal to the sum of incidents in individual strands as the victim may have said the crime 
was motivated by more than one strand. 
 
As previously stated, survey years have been combined to give more robust estimates for the level of 
hate crime in England and Wales. However, even with the joining of datasets, the number of victims of 
hate crime upon which these estimates are based are relatively small. Therefore, the associated 
‘range’ or confidence intervals15 around the estimate of total hate crimes and each monitored strand 
                                                        
14 The 7,530,000 incidents of crime overall in the CSEW is approximately the average of the 8,487,000, 7,318,000 
and 6,786,000 incidents reported in the 2012/13, 2013/14 and 2014/15 CSEW. 
15 This confidence interval is the range of values that we can be 95% confident that the actual number of hate 
crimes is between.  
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
All hate crime
Race
Religion
Sexual 
orientation
Disability
Number of estimated hate crimes (000s)

Hate crime from the CSEW 
15 
 
are relatively large, as shown in Figure 4.1, meaning it can be difficult to make comparisons between 
the monitored strands over time.  
 
However, there was a statistically significant fall16 in the number of hate crime incidents from 307,000 
in the combined 2007/08 and 2008/09 CSEW to 222,000 in the combined 2012/13 to 2014/15 CSEW 
(a fall of 28% between these combined surveys). Over the same time period, there was a similar 
percentage fall (25%) in crime overall in the CSEW, from 10,063,000 incidents in the combined 
2007/08 and 2008/09 CSEW to 7,530,000 in the combined 2012/13 to 2014/15 CSEW (Table 4.01)., 
The CSEW suggests, therefore, that hate crime has fallen at a similar rate to overall CSEW crime over 
this period.  
 
The CSEW provides estimates of the levels of personal and household crimes experienced by adults 
in England and Wales. Personal crimes are those against the individual and only relate to the 
respondent’s own personal experience (not that of other people in the household). Household crimes 
cover property crimes which target the entire household (for example, burglary, criminal damage, or 
vehicle-related theft) and respondents are asked whether anyone currently residing in the household 
has experienced any such incident17.  
 
The 2012/13 to 2014/15 combined CSEW shows there were around 148,000 incidents of personal 
hate crime and 74,000 incidents of household hate crime a year18. Total CSEW crime incidents were 
around 2,994,000 incidents of personal crime and 4,536,000 incidents of household crime a year 
overall in the CSEW for the equivalent combined period (Appendix Table 4.01). While 40 per cent of 
incidents of overall CSEW crime were personal crimes, around two-thirds (67%) of hate crime 
incidents were personal crimes. 
 
The combined 2012/13 to 2014/15 CSEW estimates show that 0.4 per cent of adults were victims of 
any hate crime in the 12 months prior to interview. A similar percentage were victims of personal hate 
crime (0.2%) as were victims of household hate crime (0.2%). To put these figures in context, looking 
at CSEW crime overall, around five per cent of adults were victims of personal crime and around 13 
per cent of households were a victim of household crime (Appendix Table 4.03).  
 
There was a statistically significant fall19 in the percentage of adults who were victims of hate crime 
from 0.6 per cent in the combined 2007/08 and 2008/09 CSEW to 0.4 per cent in the combined 
2012/13 to 2014/15 CSEW. Over the same time period, there was also a fall in prevalence of crime 
overall in the CSEW, from 23 per cent of respondents in the combined 2007/08 and 2008/09 CSEW to 
17 per cent in the combined 2012/13 to 2014/15 CSEW. 
 
Three per cent of crime incidents overall in the CSEW were perceived to be hate crime incidents, a 
similar figure to the estimates for previous years (also 3%).The proportion of incidents that were 
perceived to be hate crime varied by crime type. For example, eight per cent of violence without injury 
incidents were perceived to be hate crime whereas three per cent of criminal damage incidents were 
perceived to be hate crime (Appendix Table 4.04). 
 
These two offence types accounted for the majority of hate crime incidents in the CSEW, with 49 per 
cent of hate crime incidents being violence, and around a fifth (19%) being criminal damage. In 
comparison, only 19 per cent of overall CSEW crime was violence (Table 3). 
 
 
 
                                                        
16 Statistical significance testing for all crime has been assumed based on significant changes observed in the 2 
sub-categories of personal and household crime. 
17 See Section 2.5 in ONS’s User Guide to Crime Statistics in England and Wales for a discussion of measures of 
CSEW crime. 
18 Numbers do not sum to overall hate crime incident total due to rounding. 
19 Statistical significance testing for all crime has been assumed based on significant changes observed in the 2 
sub-categories of personal and household crime. 

Hate Crimes, England and Wales, 2014/15 
16 
 
Table 3: Percentage of hate crime incidents, by type of offence, 2012/13 to 2014/15 CSEW 
 
 
 
Source: Crime Survey for England and Wales, Office for National Statistics 
1. Base is all CSEW crime incidents. 
 
4.2 VICTIMISATION BY PERSONAL AND HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS 
 
Analysis of victimisation by personal and household characteristics showed that for personal hate 
crime (as with CSEW crime overall, ONS, Crime in England and Wales - year ending March 2015, 
Annual Trend and Demographic tables), the risk of being a victim varied by socio-demographic 
characteristics. It should be noted that differences in victimisation rates between ethnic groups may be 
at least partly attributable to factors other than ethnicity. Previous research (Jansson, 2006; Salisbury 
and Upson, 2004) has shown that people with a Mixed ethnic background are most at risk of crime. 
However, multivariate analyses identified that, for the key crime types, ethnicity was not independently 
associated with the risk of victimisation (Jansson et al., 2007). The proportion of young people in the 
Mixed ethnic group was, for example, found to be large in comparison to other ethnic groups; and 
young people are at a higher risk of victimisation (Flatley et al., 2010). There are also inter-
relationships between other personal characteristics. 
 
The risk of being a victim of personal hate crime in the 2012/13 to 2014/15 CSEW (Appendix Table 
4.05) was highest, for example, among: 
 
 people aged 16 to 24 (0.4% experienced personal hate crime), and in particular men aged 16 to 
24 (0.5% of 16 to 24 year-old men experienced personal hate crime, compared with fewer than 
0.05% of men aged 75 and over); 
 those with the religious group ‘other’ (1.1%) or Muslim (0.6%) compared with 0.1% of Christian 
respondents; 
 people with Black (0.7%), Asian (0.5%) or Mixed Ethnic (1.4%) backgrounds compared with 
White adults (0.1%);  
 those whose marital status was single (0.4% compared with 0.1% of married adults); 
Percentages
Type of incident
All hate crime
All CSEW crimes
PERSONAL CRIME
Violence without injury
26
10
Violence with injury 
24
9
Robbery
4
2
Theft from person
8
7
Other theft of personal property
6
12
ALL PERSONAL CRIME
67
40
HOUSEHOLD CRIME
Criminal damage
19
20
Burglary
8
11
Vehicle-related theft
1
13
Bicycle theft
1
5
Other household theft
4
11
ALL HOUSEHOLD CRIME
33
60
Unweighted base 1
413
20,803
England and Wales, CSEW

Hate crime from the CSEW 
17 
 
The risk of being a victim of household hate crime (Appendix Table 4.06) was highest among, for 
example, people who: 
  
 were social renters (0.4% experienced household hate crime compared with, for example, 0.1% 
of owner occupiers);  
 lived in a household with a total income of less than £10,000 (0.5% compared with 0.1% among 
those who lived in households with a total income of £50,000 or more). 
 
4.3 REPEAT VICTIMISATION 
 
Repeat victimisation20 is defined here as being a victim of the same type of any hate crime more than 
once in the last year21.  Levels of repeat victimisation account for differences between CSEW 
estimates of incidence rates (Appendix Table 4.03) and victimisation rates (Appendix Table 4.04). For 
instance, high levels of repeat victimisation will be demonstrated by lower victimisation rates when 
compared with corresponding incidence rates (see for example, ONS, Crime in England and Wales - 
year ending March 2015, Annual Trend and Demographic tables). 
 
The combined 2012/13 to 2014/15 CSEW estimates show higher rates of repeat victimisation for hate 
crime compared with CSEW crime overall for both personal and household crime (Figure 4.2 and 
Appendix Table 4.07).  
 
 
 
                                                        
20 See Section 2.5 of ONS’s User Guide to Crime Statistics for England and Wales for a discussion of repeat 
victimisation. 
21 Where incidents of a similar nature that are probably carried out by the same perpetrator(s) have occurred, 
CSEW estimates only include the first five incidents in this ‘series’ of victimisations, see Section 2.5 of ONS’s 
User Guide to Crime Statistics in England and Wales. 

Hate Crimes, England and Wales, 2014/15 
18 
 
Figure 4.2: Percentage of victims who were victimised more than once in the previous year, 
2012/13 to 2014/15 CSEW 
 
Source: Crime Survey for England and Wales, Office for National Statistics 
 
Incidents of hate crime were also more likely to be repeatedly experienced for household crime 
offences than for personal crime offences. The 2012/13 to 2014/15 combined surveys showed 35 per 
cent of victims of household hate crime had been victimised more than once in the previous year, 
compared with 27 per cent of victims of personal hate crime. This difference is larger than that found 
in overall CSEW crime (25% of victims of CSEW household crime were repeat victims, compared with 
20% of victims of CSEW personal crime; Appendix Table 4.07). 
 
4.4 REPORTING HATE CRIME 
 
The CSEW asks people who experienced crimes in the past year whether the police came to know 
about the incident, that is, whether they reported it or the police came to know about it in another way 
(for example, they arrived at the scene of crime). Based on the 2012/13 to 2014/15 CSEW, overall 48 
per cent of hate crime incidents came to the attention of the police, similar to the proportion of hate 
crimes in previous surveys (Table 4). The proportion of hate crime incidents that came to the attention 
of the police was higher than that for overall CSEW crime, which was 40 per cent. The difference in 
reporting rates was most marked for household crime (Table 4).  
 
The main reason for the differences in the proportion of hate crimes coming to the attention of the 
police compared with overall crime is likely to be due to the type of hate crimes identified by the 
CSEW. For example, Table 3 showed that 49 per cent of hate crime incidents were for violence 
compared with only 19 per cent of overall CSEW crime. Conversely, only 13 per cent of hate crime 
incidents were theft, compared with 19 per cent of overall CSEW crime. These two incident types have 
different reporting rates to the police, with violent incidents having consistently had a higher reporting 
rate over a number of years (49% in Table D8 ONS, Crime in England and Wales - year ending March 
2015, Annual Trend and Demographic tables) compared with the reporting rate to the police for theft 
incidents (40%). 
 
 
 
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Personal
Household
Percentage
Hate crime
All CSEW crime

Hate crime from the CSEW 
19 
 
Table 4: Percentage of CSEW hate crime incidents that came to the attention of the police, 
CSEW1 
 
  
Source: Crime Survey for England and Wales, Office for National Statistics.  
1See Bulletin Tables for detailed footnotes. 
 
4.5 HATE CRIME BY MOTIVATING FACTOR 
 
This section provides a summary of the information available for each of the five monitored strands 
from the CSEW. However, the CSEW cannot be used to provide information below the headline 
statistics on the strands of disability, sexual orientation or gender-identity as the number of victims 
covered by the sample in the survey was too small to provide robust estimates. 
Racially motivated hate crime 
Based on data from the CSEW for 2012/13 to 2014/15, it is estimated that there were an average of 
106,000 incidents of racially motivated hate crime per year (Appendix Table 4.01). The majority of 
incidents (67,000) were personal crimes (such as assault or personal theft offences).   
 
From these combined surveys, 0.2 per cent of adults were estimated to be victims of a racially 
motivated hate crime in the 12 months prior to interview.  
 
Adults in non-White ethnic groups were much more likely to be victims of a racially motivated hate 
crime than White adults (for example, 1.0% of Asian and 0.7% of Black adults compared with 0.1% of 
White adults, 2012/13 to 2014/15 CSEW). This is a more pronounced difference in the likelihood of 
victimisation than for overall CSEW crime (of which hate crime incidents are a subset), where similar 
proportions of adults from different ethnic groups were victims (19% of adults from an Asian ethnic 
group and 18% of those from a Black ethnic group were victims of crime compared with 17% of White 
adults; Table 5). 
 
 
 
Percentages
England and Wales, CSEW
Percentage 
reported to 
police
Unweighted 
base 1
Percentage 
reported to 
police
Unweighted 
base 1
Percentage 
reported to 
police
Unweighted 
base 1
All hate crime
51
516
49
666
48
409
All CSEW crime1
39
24,935
39
34,314
40
20,718
2007/08 to 2008/091
2009/10 to 2011/121
2012/13 to 2014/15

Hate Crimes, England and Wales, 2014/15 
20 
 
Table 5: Percentage of adults aged 16 and over who were victims of racially-motivated hate 
crime and all CSEW crime, by ethnic group, 2012/13 to 2014/15, CSEW 
 
 
 
Source: Crime Survey for England and Wales, Office for National Statistics 
1See Bulletin Tables for detailed footnotes. 
 
Analysis of racially motivated hate crime by religion shows that Muslim adults or those whose religion 
was coded as ‘other’ were more likely to be a victim of racially motivated hate crime (1.2%) than other 
adults (for example, 0.1% of Christian adults or those with no religion) (Appendix Table 4.09). 
Religiously motivated hate crime 
Based on data from the CSEW for 2012/13 to 2014/15, it is estimated that there were an average of 
38,000 incidents of religiously motivated hate crime per year (Appendix Table 4.01). This total was 
split fairly evenly between personal crimes (21,000 incidents) and household crimes (17,000).   
 
From these combined surveys, it is estimated that 0.1 per cent of adults were victims of a religiously 
motivated hate crime in the 12 months prior to interview. The 2012/13 to 2014/15 CSEW showed that 
Muslim adults were the most likely to be a victim of religiously motivated hate crime (0.8%; Appendix 
Table 4.10). 
 
Adults with an Asian ethnic group were more likely to be victims of a religiously motivated hate crime 
than adults of White ethnic group (0.5% and less than 0.1% respectively, 2012/13 to 2014/15 CSEW; 
Appendix Table 4.10).  
Sexual orientation motivated hate crime 
The combined 2012/13 to 2014/15 CSEW dataset estimates that there were 29,000 sexual orientation 
hate crimes per year on average (Appendix Table 4.01).  
 
In October 2013, Stonewall released ‘Homophobic Hate Crime: The Gay British Crime Survey 2013’22. 
This survey, based upon the responses from 2,544 lesbian, gay and bisexual adults from across 
Britain in February and March 2013, provides an alternative source of information about sexual 
orientation hate crime. 
 
 
                                                        
22 Homophobic  Hate Crime: The Gay British Crime Survey 2013 
Percentages
England and Wales, CSEW
All racially 
motivated hate 
crime1
All CSEW 
crime
Unweighted 
base
ALL ADULTS
0.2
17.2
103,601
Ethnic group1
White
0.1
17.0
93,891
Mixed/multiple ethnic groups
1.1
26.6
971
Asian/Asian British
1.0
18.6
5,126
Black/African/Caribbean/Black 
0.7
17.7
2,770
Other ethnic group
0.8
14.8
735

Hate crime from the CSEW 
21 
 
Disability motivated hate crime 
The combined 2012/13 to 2014/15 CSEW dataset estimates that there were 70,000 disability 
motivated hate crimes per year on average (Appendix Table 4.01). 
 
The Life Opportunities Survey23 provides additional information on disability hate crime. Published in 
December 2011, the Life Opportunities Survey Wave One results 2009/2011 found that two per cent 
of all adults interviewed had been a victim of hate crime in the past 12 months. This is higher than the 
CSEW estimate of 0.4 per cent, partly because it includes age and gender motivated hate crime but 
also due to the different question wording24. 
Gender-identity motivated hate crime 
The CSEW has only asked about gender-identity hate crime since 2011/12. Even though the data 
have been analysed using data from combined years of the CSEW, the number reporting a gender-
identity motivated crime is still very small and therefore a reliable estimate for this particular strand of 
hate crime cannot be produced. 
 
4.6 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM THE CSEW  
 
As well as the level of hate crime estimates from the CSEW, additional information is available on 
victim satisfaction with the police following a hate crime incident, the emotional impact of being a 
victim and respondents’ worry about hate crime. Where possible, comparisons are made with overall 
crime as measured by the CSEW. 
Victim satisfaction with the police 
CSEW respondents who were victims of crime and had contact with the police in the last 12 months 
were asked how satisfied they were with the way the police handled the matter. Based on the 
combined 2012/13 to 2014/15 surveys, 52 per cent of hate crime victims were very or fairly satisfied 
with the handling of the matter, a lower proportion that for victims of CSEW crime overall (73% were 
very or fairly satisfied). Hate crime victims were also more likely to be very dissatisfied (35%) with the 
police handling of the matter than overall CSEW crime (14%; Appendix Table 4.11 and Figure 4.3). 
 
The differences in victim satisfaction with the police for hate crime victims compared with overall crime 
victims might in part be due to the type of crimes identified by the CSEW (as rates of police 
satisfaction differ by offence type – see Table S14 ONS, Crime in England and Wales - year ending 
March 2015, Supplementary tables). However, although based on a low number of respondents, 
victims of violent hate crime incidents were less satisfied with the police (46% were very or fairly 
satisfied) than victims of overall violent crime incidents (68%, table not shown). 
 
 
 
                                                        
23 Life Opportunities Survey home page 
24 The answer categories included a health condition, illness or impairment, which is not included in the CSEW 
question. 

Hate Crimes, England and Wales, 2014/15 
22 
 
Figure 4.3: Victim satisfaction with the police, 2012/13 to 2014/15 CSEW 
 
 
Source: Crime Survey for England and Wales, Office for National Statistics 
 
The combined 2012/13 to 2014/15 surveys show that victims of hate crime were less likely to think the 
police had treated them fairly or with respect, compared with victims of CSEW crime overall. For 
example, in 59 per cent of hate crime incidents the victims thought the police treated them fairly, 
compared with 81 per cent of incidents of CSEW crime overall. Similarly, in 79 per cent of incidents of 
hate crime, victims thought the police treated them with respect, compared with 89 per cent of 
incidents of CSEW crime overall. These patterns are similar to previous years (Appendix Table 4.11). 
Effects of hate crime 
As part of the follow-up questions on their crime experience, victims were asked if they had an 
emotional reaction after the incident and, if so, how much they were affected and in which ways. 
According to the 2012/13 to 2014/15 surveys victims of hate crime were more likely than victims of 
CSEW crime overall to say they were emotionally affected by the incident (92% and 81% respectively) 
and more likely to be ‘very much’ affected (36% and 13% respectively); this trend is similar over time 
(Appendix Table 4.12). 
 
Of those who said they were emotionally affected, victims of hate crimes tended to be more affected 
than victims of CSEW crime overall. For example, more than twice as many hate crime victims said 
they had suffered a loss of confidence or had felt vulnerable after the incident (39%), compared with 
CSEW crime overall (17%). Hate crime victims were also more than twice as likely to experience fear, 
difficultly sleeping, anxiety or panic attacks or depression compared with victims of overall CSEW 
crime (Figure 4.4). This is probably not due to the type of hate crimes identified by the CSEW, as 
victims of violent crime tend to be less likely to say they were emotionally affected than victims of other 
crime types. (Table 3.4 ONS Nature of crime tables 2013-14 Violence and Table 7.5 ONS Nature of 
crime tables 2013-14 Personal and other theft). 
 
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
All hate crime
All CSEW crime
Very dissatisfied
A bit dissatisfied
Too early to say
Fairly satisfied
Very satisfied

Hate crime from the CSEW 
23 
 
Figure 4.4: Emotional impact of hate crime incident, 2012/13 to 2014/15 CSEW 
 
 
Source: Crime Survey for England and Wales, Office for National Statistics 
Worry about being a victim of crime 
The CSEW asks respondents how worried they are about being a victim of different types of crime. 
The 2012/13 to 2014/15 CSEW showed that overall 11 per cent of adults were ‘very’ worried about 
being subject to a physical attack because of their skin colour, ethnic origin or religion. Unsurprisingly, 
as with the other perception questions, this was much higher among adults from Asian Ethnic 
backgrounds (16%) or Black and Minority Ethnic backgrounds (13%) than among White adults (2%); 
Appendix Table 4.13). This compares with five per cent of adults who were ‘very’ worried about being 
a victim of any crime, the pattern amongst ethnicity showing a similar split (8% of White adults and 
20% of all non-White adults). 
 
 
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Annoyance
Anger
Shock
Loss of 
confidence 
or feeling 
vunerable
Fear
Difficulty 
sleeping
Crying/tears Anxiety or 
panic 
attacks
Depression
Other
Percentage 
All hate crime
All CSEW crime

 
24 
 
Further information 
‘Hate Crimes, England and Wales, 2011/12’ is available from: 
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/hate-crimes-england-and-wales-2011-to-2012--2 
‘An Overview of Hate Crimes in England Wales’ (wider coverage using data from the Ministry of 
Justice and the Crime Survey for England and Wales) is available from: 
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/an-overview-of-hate-crime-in-england-and-wales 
‘Hate Crimes, England and Wales, 2013/14’ is available from: 
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/hate-crimes-england-and-wales-2013-to-2014 
Other sources of hate crime data from a number of different organisations (including the Association of 
Chief Police Officers, Stonewall and the Crown Prosecution Service) can be found here: 
http://www.report-it.org.uk/hate_crime_data1 (figures published by ACPO are based upon calendar 
year data and also include Northern Ireland). 
The True Vision website contains more information about hate crime and how to report it: 
http://www.report-it.org.uk/home 
Information about ‘Challenge it, Report it, Stop it: The Government’s Plan to Tackle Hate Crime’ can 
be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/challenge-it-report-it-stop-it-a-plan-to-tackle-
hate-crime, and the latest update can be found here: 
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/307624/HateCrimeActio
nPlanProgressReport.pdf 
Hate crime statistics published by the Scottish and Northern Irish governments can be found here: 
http://www.psni.police.uk/index/updates/updates_domestic_and_hate_motivation_statistics.htm 
http://www.copfs.gov.uk/images/HateCrimeinScotland2014-15.pdf (figures published by the Scottish 
Government are based on the number of offenders charged, rather than police recorded crime). 
The Crown Prosecution Service website also carried information about hate crime, including policy 
and guidance and performance information, which can be found here: 
http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/equality/hate_crime/index.html 
A report by the Law Commission which considers whether hate crime offences should be extended to 
cover all five on the monitored strands can be found here: http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/document/hate-
crime-2/ 
Copies of other Home Office publications (including crime statistics releases prior to April 2012) are 
available from: 
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/home-office/series/crime-statistics#publications 
Copies of crime statistics publications from April 2012 are available from the Office for National 
Statistics website:  
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/taxonomy/index.html?nscl=Crime+and+Justice 
This includes the User Guide to Crime Statistics, a useful reference guide with explanatory notes 
regarding the issues and classifications that are key to the production and presentation of the crime 
statistics. 
The dates of forthcoming publications are pre-announced and can be found via the UK National 
Statistics Publication Hub:  https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/announcements  

 
25 
 
Annex A – Hate Crimes Data Sources and 
Quality 
INTRODUCTION 
In January 2014, the UK Statistics Authority published its assessment of ONS crime statistics. It found 
that statistics based on police recorded crime data, having been assessed against the Code of 
Practice for Official Statistics, did not meet the required standard for designation as National Statistics. 
The UK Statistics Authority published a list of requirements for these statistics to regain the National 
Statistics accreditation.  
Some of the requirements of this assessment were to provide more detail on how data sources were 
used to produce these statistics, along with more information on the quality of the statistics. 
Additionally, there was a requirement to provide information on the process used by police forces to 
submit and revise data, and the validation processes used by the Home Office. In order to ensure that 
this publication meets the high standards required by the UK Statistics Authority, details are provided 
below. 
POLICE RECORDED CRIME DATA SOURCES AND VALIDATION PROCESS 
Hate crime data are supplied to the Home Office by the 43 territorial police forces of England and 
Wales, plus the British Transport Police. Forces either supply the data monthly via the Home Office 
Data Hub or on an annual basis in an aggregated return. For forces with data on the Data Hub, the 
Home Office extracts the number of offences for each force which have been flagged by forces as 
having been motivated by one or more of the monitored strands. It is then possible to derive the count 
of offences and the number of monitored strands covered. In the aggregate return, police forces 
submit both the total number of hate crime offences (that is a count of the number of unique offences 
motivated by one or more of the five monitored strands) and the number of monitored strands (or 
motivating factors) associated with these offences. The second figure is supplied broken down by 
monitored strand so an offence motivated by hostility to race and religion would be counted twice, 
once under each of the strands.  
Further information on how the police record crime can be found in the Hate Crime Operational 
Guidance25 publication.  
At the end of each financial year the Home Office carry out a series of quality assurance checks on 
the hate crime data collected from the police forces (either by aggregate return or via the Data Hub). 
These checks include: 
 Looking for any large or unusual changes in hate crimes from the previous year. 
 Looking for outliers. 
 Checking that the total number of hate crimes is higher than the total number of offences. 
Where these two figures were the same, the force was asked to confirm they were recording 
multiple hate crime strands. 
 Comparing the number of racist incidents with the number of race hate crimes. 
 
                                                        
25 For recording purposes, the perception of the victim, or any other person, is the defining factor in determining 
whether an incident is a hate incident, or in recognising the hostility element of a hate crime. The victim does not 
have to justify or provide evidence of their belief, and police officers or staff should not directly challenge this 
perception. Evidence of the hostility is not required for an incident or crime to be recorded as a hate crime or hate 
incident. (http://www.report-it.org.uk/files/hate_crime_operational_guidance.pdf) 

Hate Crimes, England and Wales, 2014/15 
26 
 
Police forces are then asked to investigate these trends and either provide an explanation, or resubmit 
figures where the reconciliation identifies data quality issues. 
The data are then tabulated by monitored strand and year and sent back to forces for them to verify. 
At this stage they are asked to confirm in writing that the data they submitted are correct and if they 
are not, then they have the opportunity to revise their figures. 
Racist incidents are provided to the Home Office on an annual basis and are confirmed with forces. 
CRIME SURVEY FOR ENGLAND AND WALES 
The Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) is a face-to-face victimisation survey in which 
adults resident in households in England and Wales are asked about their experiences of crime in the 
12 months prior to interview26. Due to the relatively low volume of hate crime incidents in the sample 
survey, the figures are not sufficiently robust to report for a single year of the CSEW. Data from three 
survey years have therefore been combined to give a larger sample size, increasing the number of 
incidents available for analysis. For the latest time period data have been combined for the 2012/13, 
2013/14 and 2014/15 surveys. In 2012, the CSEW amended the design of its sample and in addition 
to the creation of a bespoke CSEW sampling geography, a subtle revision to the sampling process 
enforced a stricter structure so that after three years it allowed for the possibility of creating 
unclustered three year national datasets on a rolling basis. The advantage of these datasets, based 
on three years data rather than one, is that the tripling of the sample size and the removal of any 
cluster from the design act together to facilitate the production of more precise estimates for smaller 
populations.  
As the survey runs continuously throughout the year and respondents are asked about their 
experiences in the 12 months to interview, the time period covered from these combined surveys is 
March 2011 to February 2015. 
This report provides an estimate of the level of hate crime in England and Wales from these combined 
surveys. Information from the survey also covers details about people’s experiences of hate crime, 
including whether they reported the incident to the police, the emotional affects experienced and their 
satisfaction with the police. Data are also provided on respondents’ worry about hate crime. Where 
possible, comparisons are made with overall crime as measured by the CSEW.  
As well as asking respondents about the five monitored strands of hate crime, the CSEW also asks 
respondents if they thought the incident was motivated by age or gender, though no analyses are 
produced by age and gender in this publication.  
The CSEW question on whether an incident was motivated by race was first introduced in 1988, and 
has been kept as a separate question since then. Religiously motivated hate crime used to be asked 
about as a separate question (in the 2005/06 and 2006/07 CSEW) but was merged into the main 
CSEW question when further hate crime questions referring to sexual orientation, age and disability 
were introduced in 2007/08. In 2009/10, gender was added as a motivation and gender-identity was 
added as a motivation to the 2011/12 survey.  
For this publication total hate crime for the 2012/13 to 2014/15 CSEW includes all five monitored 
strands, though estimates for gender-identity hate crimes are not provided separately due to the small 
number of incidents that are perceived as being motivated by this strand. Total hate crime for the 
2007/08 and 2008/09 CSEW only includes the four strands: race, religion, disability and sexual 
orientation. Total hate crime for the 2009/10 to 2011/12 CSEW includes the four strands for 2009/10 
and 2010/11 and five strands for 2011/12.  
 
                                                        
26 See Section 2.4 in ONS’s User Guide to Crime Statistics for England and Wales for details of reference periods. 

Hate crime data sources and quality 
27 
 
Limitations of the CSEW questions 
The CSEW does not ask about hate crime directly as the concept is not well understood by the public 
and is likely to lead to mis-reporting. Instead, victims are asked about their perception of the offender’s 
motivation for the incident which is an indirect measure as it represents the victim’s perceptions of the 
offender’s motivation for the crime. This may result in some over-reporting since it is possible that 
some crimes considered here as hate crimes may actually be more a result of the victim’s vulnerability 
to crime, for example, a vulnerable householder victim of a distraction burglary27, or an assumption on 
the victim’s behalf that the crime was motivated by the offender’s attitude. Conversely, a victim might 
be unaware that they were targeted due to a personal characteristic covered by the hate crime 
strands.  
The CSEW may over- or under-represent people who are more susceptible to hate crime. For 
example, people with a disability might find it more difficult to take part in the survey if, for example, 
their disability impacts on their ability to communicate with an interviewer. On the other hand, 
response rates to the survey might be higher among victims than non-victims as the topic seems more 
relevant to them.  
Moreover, there may also be other characteristics underlying those covered by the monitored strands 
which mean that the victim is more at risk of particular crime types. For example, findings from the 
CSEW have consistently shown that young people aged 16−24 are more likely to be victims of crime 
and it is known that particular Black and Minority Ethnic groups have a younger age profile than that 
for the general population in England and Wales.  
It should also be noted that although the CSEW asks whether or not the victim perceived the incident 
to be motivated by the monitored strands (for example, his or her disability status), it is possible in the 
cases of household crimes that it was someone else in the household that has the characteristic. For 
example, it could be that for a household crime the respondent was White but another member of the 
household of Black or Minority Ethnic background was the intended target of a crime against the 
household (e.g. an incident of vandalism). 
Understanding differences between the CSEW and police recorded crime  
There are a number of differences in the coverage of the CSEW and police recorded crime which 
present challenges in comparing across the sources.   
The sources cover different time periods; CSEW data relate to a near four-year period due to the 
joining of three datasets mentioned earlier (although figures presented are per year), while police 
recorded crime data are on a financial year basis.  
The coverage of the sources also differs; the CSEW is a victimisation survey which covers adults aged 
16 and over resident in households in England and Wales while police recorded crime figures includes 
crimes against people of all ages, against society (crimes where there is not a direct victim such as 
public order offences) as well as businesses and institutions. A key difference for hate crime offences 
is the coverage of public order offences in police recorded crime but generally not in the CSEW, as 
many of these offences will not involve a specifically identifiable victim. As previously shown, around 
half of all police recorded hate crime is for public fear, alarm or distress, a public order offence.  
For the crime types the CSEW does cover, the combined 2012/13, 2013/14 and 2014/15 surveys 
estimated that 48 per cent of hate crime incidents came to the attention of the police. However, there 
are a number of reasons (in addition to those detailed above) why the police recorded levels of hate 
crime are not as high as 48 per cent of the CSEW estimate:  
                                                        
27 Distraction burglary is a form of burglary where the offenders trick or dupe the occupant or distract them, 
allowing co-offenders to gain access and commit burglary. 
 

Hate Crimes, England and Wales, 2014/15 
28 
 
 As mentioned above, the survey questions might be misunderstood by the respondent. When 
they are asked whether they think a crime is motivated by a factor (such as disability), they may 
instead be responding based upon their perceived vulnerability.  
 The respondent is asked in the survey whether the hate crime incident came to the attention of 
the police, not whether the police actually recorded the crime (the police may witness an 
incident and think it not a crime, for example).  
 Similarly, while a respondent might say the crime did come to the attention of the police, we do 
not know whether the respondent actually told the police that they thought it was motivated by 
one of the five hate crime strands (and therefore whether the police flagged the offence as a 
hate crime). 
 In the recording of a crime, it might not become apparent that there was a motivating hate 
factor, meaning that police may not ask the direct question whether the victim thought that the 
crime was a hate crime.  
 
There is also more overlap between some of the hate crimes in the CSEW (especially racially and 
religiously motivated hate crimes) as the survey allows respondents to identify more than one 
motivating factor for each incident. For example, previous research has shown that around 20 per cent 
of racially or religiously motivated CSEW hate crimes contained both these motivating factors.28 
Conversely, only five per cent of police recorded hate crimes involved more than one motivating factor 
in 2014/15.  
The differences between the sources can also be seen in the distribution of hate crimes. While 82 per 
cent of hate crimes recorded by the police were race hate crimes, the corresponding figure from the 
survey is 48 per cent. The survey suggests a higher proportion of hate crimes are for the religion, 
sexual orientation and disability hate crime strands than is found in the police recorded crime figures. 
For disability hate crimes, for example, this fits the pattern that some respondents in the CSEW might 
be answering the question based upon their perceived vulnerability. For example, a burglary victim 
with a disability may have felt that this was a factor that made them a vulnerable target, but it does not 
necessarily follow that the offender targeted the individual due to a hatred of their disability. 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
28 See Understanding differences between the CSEW and police recorded crime section in  
 An Overview of Hate Crimes in England Wales  

 
 
 
 
 
ISBN:  978-1-78246-860-8 
ISSN:  1759-7005 
 
© Crown copyright 2015 
This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 
except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit 
nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the 
Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: 
xxx@xxx.xx. 
Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain 
permission from the copyright holders concerned. 
Statistical Bulletins are prepared by staff in Home Office Statistics under the National 
Statistics Code of Practice and can be downloaded from GOV.UK:  
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/home-office/about/statistics