By Ife Thompson, Barrister, Nexus Chambers
Introduction
There has been a growing disturbing trend in the UK that involves the prosecution of Black language practices, wrongly under the guise of hate crime laws for words that have been reclaimed and given new meanings within languages like Black-British English (BBE) and (AAVE) African American Vernacular English. This practice by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) engages concerns about how these prosecutions in fact disproportionally interfere with language speakers’ linguistic rights under Article 8 (The right to a private and family life) and Article 10 (The right to freedom of expression) of the European Convection of Human Rights (ECHR) and has been rightly called out by lawyers, journalists, community groups and organisations.
As a criminal defence barrister that is also a fluent speaker of Black -British English, it was particularly alarming for me to witness the wholesale criminalisation of an entire language community, especially because I know how those words are used within this language and languages like AAVE.
I have acted in four such cases where linguistic injustice was at the heart of the proceedings, cases which the community have aptly described as putting the N-word on trial and, more widely as Black political thought on trial. In this piece, I will expand on why this is an issue all barristers must be alive to and share how to successfully support clients charged under the Malicious Communications Act 1988, Communications Act 2003, and Racially Aggravated Public Order offences for their everyday language usage. The practice of denying Black language speakers’ their linguistic rights is not something unique to the UK and it is just as prevalent in the USA; however, communities and lawyers[1] have successfully fought back and gained very important linguistic wins and I am proud to be a part of that same tradition in the UK.
The N-word on trial and Black Political thought on trial.
Hate crime laws were first introduced in the United Kingdom through the Race Relations Acts of 1965 and 1968. These enactments reflected the efforts of the Windrush generation and activists such as Claudia Jones[2] and Paul Stephenson[3], who campaigned against the colour bar and the systemic racism faced by Black communities in post-war Britain. The legislative intent behind the 1965 Act was ostensibly protective, it was aimed at curbing racial hatred and fostering social cohesion through criminal sanctions and regulatory oversight. During the House of Lords debate on the bill, it was emphasised that “The first principle we must establish is that people, irrespective of their colour, race or national origin who come here for long or short periods must be treated as an integral part of the general public” (Hansard, HL Deb 26 July 1965, vol 268, col 1229). However, the application of the legislation in its early years revealed a profound tension between its purported purpose and its practical enforcement. The first person to be prosecuted and convicted under the 1965 Act was a Black political activist, Michael X (Michael de Freitas), who in 1967 was charged with inciting racial hatred following a political speech in Reading. This case exposed the paradox of legislation intended to protect marginalised communities being used against those seeking to challenge racial injustice.
Throughout my criminal practice, I have been instructed on cases involving the use of the word “nigga,” a term that carries specific linguistic and cultural meaning within the Black community but is often misinterpreted by those outside it. As Dr April Bell explains, “The term nigga is a linguistic reappropriation of the racial slur nigger, which was a derogatory term used by white Americans toward Black Americans to express hatred, bigotry, and anti-Black racism. Because the term nigger is a racialized epithet within the broader American English lexicon, the reappropriation of the term by AAVE speakers is often misunderstood by non-members of the Black speech community. When used by AAVE speakers, nigga has a different pronunciation (postvocalic -r deletion rule), a different spelling (nigga vs nigger), and a variety of meanings.” I highlight this distinction from the outset, as it is a key marker separating the term from the racist, anti-Black slur embedded in standardised English, known as “nigger.”
One such case where Black linguistic rights were repressed was a case where I represented a Black child who was 14 at the time of arrest and brought before the youth courts at the age of 15, for stating the term ‘My Nigga” to a white police officer and then the term “Craka”. Both words come out the Black resistance and political struggle to name our experiences and reclaim words that were used to caused us harm. This whole exchange was captured on CCTV Camera.
Once I started to review the case file and started my case preparation, I instantly recognised the language terms used by my client’s and knew that it would be vital to instruct an African American Vernacular English linguist to explain the Etymology of those two words within AAVE and its wider use within the Black linguistic diaspora. Once the Linguist’s report on the history of those words were drafted, I wrote representations to the CPS expanding on its own failure to recognise Black Language speakers’ rights and the need to stop the overcriminalisation of Black girls within the Youth Justice System and how when taking both of these points into consideration that CPS’s evidential and public interest test for the continuation of this prosecution were not met.
On the day of the trial, I spoke to the trial lawyer and carefully took her through the expert evidence and my human rights concerns about the continuation of this prosecution. She spoke to the reviewing lawyer noting the points I had raised, and they offered no evidence to that charge.
Similar outcomes have occurred in two of my other cases. The first case, known in the community as the ‘Justice for Jamila A campaign’ which attracted support from Black Lives Matter UK, 4Front, BLAM UK and Nels Abby of the Black Writer Guild. The case of Jamila A was also featured in the Guardian and the Independent – by the UK’s first Race Correspondent, I emphasize on this to show how much of an important issue it was for many within the Black-British community. The facts of the case were as follows amila A was charged under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 for allegedly using grossly offensive language, a charge later amended to one of obscene communications, after she responded to a tweet on 27 August 2023 from another Black person in the United States with the African American Vernacular English (AAVE) and Black British English (BBE) term “nigga.” Jamila A’s tweet was picked up by a data monitoring organisation, passed on to the Met Police, who then attended her home address and subsequently interviewed her at the police station. She was later charged and brought before Westminster Magistrates’ court.
As part of this case, I drafted letters of representations to the CPS, one totalling 23 pages, arguing that the matter did not pass the evidential and/or public interest stage of the test required to prosecute someone. A few of the points highlighted to the CPS are noted below:
- Jamila A is a fluent Black-British English speaker, and her use of the term “Nigga” was a fundamental part of her language practice.
- The prosecution disproportionately interfered with her rights under Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights (‘ECHR’) the Right to Freedom of Expression and the Right to use language from her culture which we argued should be protected from discrimination under Article 10, read in conjunction of Article 14 of the ECHR.
- The case placed undue stress and anxiety on Jamila A by prolonging proceedings unnecessarily.
- The CPS’s failure to consider the cultural and linguistic context of her speech, reinforces anti-Black linguistic discrimination and raises concerns about its compliance with Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010.
The Expert reports also noted:
- Dr Dominique Branson (USA-based AAVE linguist) emphasised that language interpretation belongs to the speech community. She noted that Jamila A’s identity as a Black person and acceptance of the term within her social network aligned with broader linguistic research, confirming that her usage was consistent with AAVE norms.
- Dr Ian Cushing (UK-based linguist, specialist in Black British English) highlighted that “Nigga” has been widely used in Black British English (BBE) since the rise of hip-hop in the 1980s, particularly he pointed to sociolinguistic research showing its role in expressing Black identity and solidarity. He also referenced the Aston University Institute for Forensic Linguistics that is used by UK police forces, which classifies the term “nigga” as neutral or affectionate in many contexts.
A lengthy Defence Case Statement was also served, setting out nineteen disclosure requests made by the Defence to the CPS, not limited to but including whether various parties had consulted their equality and diversity teams regarding the nature of the use of the word “nigga” and whether a Black person would find it offensive.
The CPS subsequently requested for an adjournment after receiving our Defence Statement of which the Judge granted noting “that there were serious issues of fact and law with the case and that it is appropriate and necessary for the Crown to review its position in light of the Defence statement.”
On 5th March 2025, the Crown formally wrote to the Defence, confirming that they would no longer be proceeding with the charges against Jamila A.
Another more recent case that I acted on, in which the Crown (CPS) offered no evidence on 15 August 2025 involved a case where a young Black male adult, who was a fluent Black British English speaker, used the word “my nigga” to a Black police officer. Due to him being on a prison licence, he was automatically recalled after being prosecuted for this offence, which I can only describe as being criminalised for his fluency in BBE. After the careful instruction of an AAVE and a BBE linguist alongside detailed representations to the CPS explaining the inherent unfairness and linguistic discrimination this prosecution laid bare, the Crown offered no evidence.
The CPS’s repeated ability to reverse its position and offer no evidence in cases of this nature underscores a troubling pattern: a tacit acknowledgment that their prior decisions to prosecute in these cases were fundamentally flawed. This is not merely an oversight, but I would argue it reflects a systemic failure to understand and respect linguistic diversity in the UK, with serious consequences for justice. A reflection of this concern is further seen in the persistent absence of clear CPS and police guidance on the linguistic rights of Black language speakers in line with their duties under the equalities act and human rights conventions. The consequences of having a criminal record are profound, extending beyond legal penalties. Yet, despite Black communities already being disproportionately overpoliced, there appears to be minimal oversight to prevent the further criminalisation of these communities under hate crime laws, laws that were ironically intended to protect them.
This is why in light of this ongoing injustice, I invite all defence and prosecution lawyers to read this guide I created for Youth Justice Legal Centre on Rap and Drill Music as there is a section within it where I focus on Linguistic Justice in the Criminal Justice System. I believe that in the absence of official police and CPS guidance on these issues, lawyers need to better equip themselves in understanding anti-Black linguistic racism in order to better aid in calling it out and resisting the wrongful and unfair prosecution of Black language speakers.
Ife Thompson, Barrister, Nexus Chambers
[1] Please read the USA case of (MARTIN LUTHER KING JR., ETC. v. Ann Arbor Sch. Dist., 473 F. Supp. 1371 (E.D. Mich. 1979)
[2] Claudia Jones (1915–1964) was a Trinidad-born communist, journalist, and civil rights activist, founder of The West Indian Gazette and the Notting Hill Carnival, both central to post-war Black British political and cultural life.
[3] Paul Stephenson (6 May 1937 – 2 November 2024) was a British civil rights activist best known for leading the 1963 Bristol Bus Boycott, whose work contributed to the passage of Britain’s first Race Relations Act.
