The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has dropped another case of Met Police overreach in the use of racially-related hate crime powers. In December 2023, the force had charged young Black woman Jamila Abdi under the Communications Act 2003 for alleged use of obscene language. It deployed this against her for using the N-word in a football discussion on X (then Twitter).
It’s another example of the Met weaponising racially minoritised communities’ cultures against them in a gross and institutionally racist abuse of power.
Met Police: charging a Black woman for a ‘racist’ Tweet
As the Independent reported previously, the Met charged 21 year-old university student Jamila Abdi over a Tweet to another Black woman:
Jamila Abdi, 21, was having a discussion about a football match on X (formerly known as Twitter) on 27 August 2023 and used the n-word to refer to Black footballer Alexander Isak.
“I’m so p***** off let me get my hands on that f**** n***a,” Ms Abdi, who lives in London, wrote.
The Metropolitan Police called her in for questioning in December 2023
Initially, the Met applied a trumped up charge under Section 1 (a) and Section 4 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988. This stipulates that a person is guilty of an offence if they send electronic communication to another person of an “indecent or grossly offensive nature” causing “distress or anxiety” to the recipient or others.
Notably, the application of Section 4 could have resulted in a prison term of up to two years, a fine, or both.
When the Independent covered the story in July, this charge was still in place. However, the CPS appeared to notify the outlet ahead of informing the defence that it was changing the charge. The media site reported that it was charging Abdi with a summary offence under the Communications Act 2003.
The CPS didn’t bring this to the defence’s attention until 1 August 2024. This downgraded the possible charge to six months of imprisonment, a fine, or both. However, the process of changing the charge also meant that the CPS denied Abdi the choice of a jury trial.
Infringing on Jamila Abdi’s rights to Freedom of Expression
At the time, the CPS told the Independent that:
Being from an ethnic minority background does not provide a defence to racially abusing someone.
Our commitment to tackling these abhorrent crimes through fair and impartial prosecution is unwavering.
Moreover, it highlighted that the CPS’s code sets out that:
it is more likely that prosecution is required if the offence was motivated by any form of prejudice against the victim’s actual or presumed ethnic or national origin, gender, disability, age, religion or belief, sexual orientation or gender identity; or if the suspect targeted or exploited the victim, or demonstrated hostility towards the victim, based on any of those characteristics.
However, Jamila Abdi’s defence rightly challenged that her Tweet actually constituted racially-motivated prejudice – because the Met’s claims that it did were highly questionable for a number of reasons.
The defence highlighted that as a fluent Black British English speaker, her use of the term was a fundamental part of her language.
So instead, it argued that it was the prosecution’s case that threw up a number of problematic potential rights infringements, including that:
- The prosecution disproportionately interfered with Abdi’s rights under Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) to Freedom of Expression. Moreover, the case violated her right to use language from her culture which should be protected from discrimination under Article 10, read in conjunction of Article 14 of the ECHR.
- The CPS’s failed to consider the cultural and linguistic context of her speech. In so doing, it reinforced anti-Black linguistic discrimination and raises concerns about its compliance with Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010.
What’s more, the prosecution presented no evidence Abdi’s Tweet even caused offense in the first place.
Taking it out of the Black British cultural linguistic context
Three experts provided analysis for the defence which exposed the sham notions at the heart of the charges. They underscored how Jamila Abdi’s use of the term was rooted in Black linguistic and cultural practices rather than being an offensive or obscene slur.
US-based African American vernacular English (AAVE) linguist Dr Dominique Branson (USA-based AAVE linguist) emphasised that language interpretation belongs to the speech community. She noted that Abdi’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.
Echoing this, UK-based linguist and specialist in Black British English Dr Ian Cushing highlighted that N-word has been widely used in Black British English (BBE) since the rise of hip-hop in the 1980s, particularly in London. He pointed to sociolinguistic research showing its role in expressing Black identity and solidarity. He also referenced the Aston University Institute for Forensic Linguistics. It classifies the term as neutral or affectionate in many contexts.
Finally, Rap and Drill expert Adele Oliver underscored the term’s deep integration into UK and US rap music. She argued that rap has facilitated intra-community appropriation of the N-word, shaping its meaning across the Black diaspora. While the term can be an expletive, its usage within Black communities carries cultural significance beyond its historically offensive connotations.
Criminalising Black people for their ‘cultural and linguistic realities’
Before listing the second trial for the case, a district judge in the Magistrates court adjourned it. The judge did so, 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.
Following this, on 5 March, the CPS formally dropped the charges against Jamila Abdi.
Now, Abdi’s ordeal is over, however the drawn out proceedings have taken a significant toll on her. What’s more, it has once again shown the institutional racism at the centre of the UK’s criminal justice industrial complex.
Abdi expressed that:
This past year and a half has been incredibly stressful. This case has shown the immense racism that is in our legal system. I was being prosecuted for speaking in a way that comes natural to me as a Black woman and is widely accepted within my community. It is absurd that the CPS continue to criminalise and prosecute black people for existing their cultural and linguistic realities and while I am relieved that the case is over, I know I wont get back the time that I have lost worrying about this case.
Of course, her case follows similar abuses by the Met in other incidents. For instance, the force wielded racially aggravated public order offence charges against teacher Marieha Hussain for another established Black British vernacular English term. It was over a protest placard in which she’d called Rishi Sunak and Suella Braverman coconuts.
Ultimately, Abdi’s barrister, Ife Thompson, articulated how:
This case raises serious concerns about how the CPS and police are unfairly and inappropriately criminalising Black language speakers. Like many other cases, it highlights the urgent need to review how charging decisions can reinforce and perpetuate anti-Black linguistic racism and discrimination.
The mainstream ‘colourblind’ approach to racism ignores the nuances of Black identity, leading to discriminatory outcomes like this one. The case also raises questions about the use of processes and procedures in content moderation.
This victory is a step towards ensuring the CPS and police recognise Black languages like AAVE and BBE and adopt a more culturally nuanced and human rights-centred approach to such cases in the future.
Jamila Abdi: community came out in solidarity
Throughout the course of the case, a number of community groups came together in solidarity with Jamila Abdi. Justice For Jamila A Campaign, a coalition of community groups including Black Lives Matter UK, Sisters Uncut, 4Front, Art Not Evidence, BLAM UK, activists and human rights defenders all joined forces to support her. So, Abdi said:
I cannot express enough my gratitude to my incredible legal team; Ife Thompson and Ghislaine Sandoval who fought tirelessly on this case when I felt powerless. Their dedication, expertise and their unwavering belief in my right to justice got us this result today. I also want to thank the team behind the Justice for Jamila A campaign who have supported me massively through this case. Their solidarity, advocacy and refusal to stay silent made all the difference. While this has been a difficult journey, I am reminded how important community and collective action are powerful forces for change.
Overall, she expressed that her case sits in the broader context of the state’s institutional racism. Crucially, it’s this that the Met and criminal justice system are built upon by their very basis. That is, to preserve the colonialist, white supremacist status quo, policing and the criminal industrial complex is racist to its very core. And it shows in the regular criminalisation of and violence against Black communities across the UK:
This is not just about me. Black people, particularly young black men and women, are disproportionately targeted, policed and punished for the ways we speak regardless of the setting. It’s unacceptable that our cultural expressions are seen as threats that need to be punished while others’ are normalised. This case is a stark reminder of the ongoing racial bias embedded in institutional that claim to serve justice.
Featured image via the Canary
