top of page
Students Collaborating Together
Racism and Hate Incidents Relating to Religion or Belief

This offence may apply where a pupil uses words, gestures, conduct, symbols, written material, online communication, or other behaviour to target another pupil, member of staff, or other member of the school community because of race, ethnicity, nationality, colour, religion, belief, perceived religion, or perceived ethnicity.

Step 1 – Determining the offence category

You should determine the offence category with reference only to the factors in the tables below. In order to determine the category, you should assess culpability and harm.​

 

Culpability

The level of culpability or blame is worked out by looking at all the factors involved in the incident. If there are elements that point to different levels of blame, you should weigh these up carefully and give the most relevant ones the right amount of importance to reach a fair judgement about the person’s level of responsibility.

A – High culpability

  • Clear racist, antisemitic, anti-Muslim, or religion-related hate motivation

  • Significant planning, coordination, or premeditation

  • Leading role where the offending is part of group activity

  • Repeated or sustained racist or religion-related abuse over time

  • Direct targeting of a vulnerable pupil, a member of staff, or another vulnerable person

  • Use of highly offensive slurs, symbols, imagery, chants, or gestures

  • Conduct intended to humiliate, intimidate, isolate, or cause fear

  • Behaviour involving threats of violence or serious harm

  • Racist or religion-related abuse carried out publicly or in front of others to maximise humiliation

  • Use of online platforms, group chats, images, or recordings to circulate or amplify the abuse

  • Deliberate hostility towards religious dress, worship, food practices, festivals, or identity

  • Incident linked to bullying, exclusion from peer groups, threats, assault, or another serious offence

B – Medium culpability

  • Deliberate racist or religion-related abusive behaviour without the highest level of planning

  • Some targeting of an individual or group

  • Use of offensive or prejudicial language with awareness of its meaning or likely impact

  • Participation in group behaviour without a leading role

  • Repetition after warning, challenge, or prior sanction

  • Incident causing clear distress, alarm, or disruption, but without the most serious features of category A

  • Incident falling between categories A and C

C – Lesser culpability

  • Isolated incident at the lower end of seriousness

  • Impulsive or immature conduct, but still clearly prejudicial in nature

  • Limited planning or spontaneous behaviour

  • Lower-level involvement in wider group behaviour

  • Responsibility substantially reduced by age, immaturity, learning difficulty, or personal circumstances

  • Involvement through coercion, intimidation, or exploitation by others

  • Quick cessation, admission, or cooperation once challenged, while recognising the seriousness of any prejudice-based conduct

​

Harm

​

Harm 1​

  • Serious emotional, psychological, or social impact on the victim

  • Serious fear, humiliation, intimidation, or isolation caused

  • Serious impact on a pupil’s sense of safety, belonging, attendance, or engagement in school

  • Serious impact on a member of staff’s wellbeing, dignity, or authority

  • Serious disruption to the school day or wider school environment

  • Serious reputational impact on the school

  • Incident causing wider fear or tension within a group, community, or protected group in school

  • Conduct linked to threats, violence, sustained bullying, or online circulation

  • Serious safeguarding concern created

Harm 2

  • Clear distress, upset, embarrassment, or exclusion caused

  • Noticeable emotional or practical impact on the victim

  • Clear disruption to relationships, learning, staff time, or pastoral support

  • Harm falling between categories 1 and 3 because:

  • factors are present in 1 and 3 which balance each other out and/or

  • the harm falls between the factors described in 1 and 3

Harm 3

  • Lower-level but still unacceptable emotional or social impact on the victim

  • Limited wider disruption once the incident was addressed

  • Isolated prejudicial incident with limited lasting effect

  • Limited wider impact on the school community

​​
 
Step 2 – Starting point and category range​​​​

 

Screenshot 2024-02-25 at 18.01.08.png

Having identified the level of culpability and harm decide on a starting point within the category range above. The starting point applies to all offenders irrespective of personal circumstances or previous exclusions. It is at the schools’ discretion how many exclusion days are served externally and internally within each category.

​

​

Step 3 – Take into consideration Aggravating and Mitigating factors

The school could consider any adjustment for any aggravating or mitigating factors. Below is a non-exhaustive list of additional factual elements providing the context of the offence and factors relating to the offender.

 

Where the incident involves repeated racism, repeated religion-related hate, threats, group targeting, online circulation, a vulnerable victim, a member of staff, or serious emotional harm, headteachers should consider whether the incident is sufficiently serious to justify a high-end fixed-term exclusion or permanent exclusion.

​

Factors increasing seriousness (Aggravation Factors)

  • Previous similar incidents or a pattern of discriminatory, racist, or religion-related behaviour

  • Nature of previous incidents and their relevance to the current offence

  • Time elapsed since previous incidents

  • Use of highly offensive racist, antisemitic, anti-Muslim, or religion-related language or symbols

  • Behaviour directed towards a vulnerable pupil, member of staff, or minority group

  • Group offending, especially where the pupil led, encouraged, or organised others

  • Public humiliation or intimidation

  • Online sharing, recording, reposting, or boasting about the incident

  • Attempts to conceal involvement or avoid accountability

  • Repetition after warning or sanction

  • Incident taking place in front of other pupils, especially younger pupils

  • Wider impact on pupils’ sense of safety, belonging, or inclusion

  • Impact on the reputation of the school

Factors reducing seriousness or reflecting personal mitigation

  • No previous similar incidents or no relevant/recent incidents

  • Genuine remorse

  • Early admission and cooperation

  • Good character and/or exemplary conduct

  • Isolated incident

  • Age and/or lack of maturity

  • Learning difficulties or Additional Learning Needs

  • Limited role in a wider group incident

  • Family circumstances

  • Clear evidence that the pupil has engaged meaningfully with restorative, educational, or corrective work following the incident


Safeguarding issues should be considered separately and are not necessarily mitigating factors.

​

Step 4 – Adjust starting point and category range

​

Having taken into consideration all aggravating and mitigating factors, adjust the starting point as deemed best fit.

​

Where the incident involves clear prejudice, repeated targeting, threats, public humiliation, group conduct, online circulation, a vulnerable victim, or serious emotional harm, an upward adjustment is likely to be appropriate.

​

Where the incident is isolated, lower-level, causes limited harm, and there is genuine remorse, early admission, and clear personal mitigation, a downward adjustment may be appropriate. That said, any racist or religion-related hate incident should still be treated seriously and addressed explicitly.

bottom of page