It is in the news that the UK home secretary Suella Braverman and the Home Office Minister Robert Jenrick consider chanting "Jihad" to be inciting terrorist violence.

Assuming this came to court, what features of the speech would the prosecution have to demonstrate for there to be a finding of incitement? Would it be the exact meaning of the words, would it be the state of mind of the speaker, would it be how it would be interpreted by the theoretical "reasonable person", would it be the actual effect on those who heard it, or some other factor?

  • @bdb484 Is that incitement law? I think that is making the act that is "intended to stir up religious hatred" a crime in itself, whereas incitement requires one to be encouraging someone else to commit a crime.
    – User65535
    Oct 24, 2023 at 18:04
  • I understand that to be the type of incitement she was talking about. I imagine there are others.
    – bdb484
    Oct 24, 2023 at 21:30

1 Answer 1


For a start, you have to have done it before 1 October 2008

The common law offence of incitement was abolished on that date under the Serious Crimes Act.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .