Lucy Connolly, a childminder and mother from Northamptonshire, became a lightning rod in the UK's response to the Southport riots following the horrific murders of three young girls—Elsie Dot Stancombe, Bebe King, and Alice da Silva Aguiar—by Axel Rudakubana on July 29, 2024. Amid the unrest that erupted, with over 1,500 arrests, Lucy was singled out not for physical involvement—she was nowhere near the protests—but for a single, emotionally charged tweet posted at 8:30 PM that night: "Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f---ing hotels full of the b-----ds for all I care, while you're at it take the treacherous government and politicians with them. I feel physically sick knowing what these families will now have to endure. If that makes me racist so be it." She deleted it within four hours after walking her dog, but the damage was done.
The next morning, as parents dropped off children at her home-based childcare business—serving diverse families from Nigerian, Somali, Jamaican, Bangladeshi, Lithuanian, and Polish backgrounds—police arrested her. Her husband, Ray, a Conservative councillor, was blindsided. At the station, Lucy apologised, explaining her distress over the murders, but the police were unrelenting. They mischaracterised her words, releasing a false statement claiming she said she "did not like immigrants" and that "children weren't safe around them," when her full transcript acknowledged immigrants' value to society while raising security concerns about unchecked illegal entries. Her mother forced a CPS correction, hinting at defamation, yet the narrative stuck.
Charged under Section 19 of the Public Order Act 1986 for "publishing material intended to stir up racial hatred," Lucy was denied bail despite no prior record, a stable family life with a 12-year-old daughter, and her deletion of the tweet. Lawyers were stunned—her low flight risk and lack of violent intent made remand excessive. Contrast this with Labour MP Dan Norris, recently arrested for serious offenses like rape and child abduction, who was bailed within hours. Facing months in limbo or a quicker release, Lucy pleaded guilty on October 17, 2024, despite denying racist intent, pressured by the prospect of missing her family.
At sentencing, Judge Melbourne Inman KC, Recorder of Birmingham, ignored mitigating factors—her PTSD from losing her infant son to NHS negligence, glowing references from immigrant families she'd served, and her immediate remorse. He sentenced her to 31 months, asserting her tweet fuelled the riots, though no evidence linked it to any act of violence. Inman's rhetoric about "diverse and inclusive" society and the need to "punish and deter" felt more political than judicial. Compare this to his leniency elsewhere: Mohammed Abbkr, convicted of attempted murder for burning two Muslim worshippers, got a hospital order, not prison, due to mental health, while Haris Ghaffar, part of a violent mob, received just 20 months.
In HMP Peterborough, Lucy endured harsh conditions alongside murderers and drug dealers, yet adapted. Eligible for Release on Temporary Licence (ROTL) since November, she's been denied despite qualifying, with prison officials citing "public perception" over incomplete risk assessments—a flimsy excuse when killers have been granted curfews. Now transferred to Staffordshire, backed by the Free Speech Union, she fights on. Her case, starkly harsher than Megan Morrison's suspended sentence for a similar post, exposes a justice system accused of bias and overreach, leaving lawyers "sickened" and her husband convinced she's a state scapegoat.
My Legal Defence of Lucy Connolly
Counsel for the defence rises to present Lucy Connolly's case, a mother and childminder unjustly ensnared by a panicked state and a judiciary bent on making an example. Our client stands before you not as a rioter, not as a racist, but as a woman who, in a moment of raw grief, posted a single tweet she swiftly regretted and removed. Charged under Section 19 of the Public Order Act 1986, she faces an outrageous 31-month sentence—two and a half years—for words, not deeds, while violent offenders walk free or serve less. We submit that this prosecution and punishment are legally unsound, disproportionate, and a miscarriage of justice. Here's why Lucy Connolly must be acquitted.
First, the prosecution failed to prove intent, the cornerstone of Section 19. The law requires that Lucy "intended" to stir up racial hatred or that hatred was "likely" to result, with intent assessed by her state of mind, not public reaction. Her tweet—"set fire to all the f---ing hotels full of the b-----ds for all I care"—was hyperbolic, born of anguish over the Southport murders, not a literal call to arson. She deleted it within four hours, before any unrest escalated, signalling regret, not malice. Her words, however crude, targeted "hotels full of" unspecified persons—interpreted as asylum seekers—yet lacked racial identifiers. The CPS twisted this into racism, but her full police statement, corrected after her mother's challenge, reveals nuance: "I'm well aware we need immigrants… it's a national security issue." This is a policy critique, not racial animus. No evidence shows she meant to incite hatred against a racial group, nor did a single person act on her post. The "likelihood" threshold fails too, deleted before dawn, it had no proven reach. The Crown's case collapses on intent.
Second, the sentencing is grossly disproportionate, violating principles of equity and precedent. Judge Inman's 31-month term—40% to be served—dwarfs penalties for physical violence. Consider Haris Ghaffar, who kicked down a pub door in a mob attack: 20 months. Or Mohammed Abbkr, an attempted murderer, spared prison for a hospital order under the same judge. Megan Morrison, charged identically for a post endorsing hotel violence, got six months suspended. Lucy's first offense, non-violent nature, and immediate retraction scream for leniency, not severity. Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, enshrined in UK law via the Human Rights Act 1998, protects her free expression unless restriction is "necessary." Here, it's punitive overkill, not necessity. The judge's claim she fuelled riots lacks a shred of causal proof—pure speculation dressed as fact.
Third, mitigating factors were disgracefully ignored. Lucy's PTSD, diagnosed after her son's death, explains her emotional outburst—confirmed by a prior thorough assessment, not the cursory video call the duty solicitor rushed. Her character shines through references from immigrant families she nurtured—Nigerian, Somali, Jamaican—praising her kindness, even aiding their citizenship bids. Her role as a mother to a 12-year-old and wife to a gravely ill husband demanded compassion, not a lecture on "diversity." Inman's dismissal of these, paired with his pattern of leniency for violent crimes, suggests bias—an activist judge, not a fair arbiter. The denial of bail and ROTL, despite eligibility, further reeks of vindictiveness, with "public perception" a smokescreen for state pressure.
I argue procedural flaws too. The CPS's false public statement—corrected only under duress—tainted her case, prejudicing perception and arguably her plea. Pressured by remand and a distant trial, she pleaded guilty not from admission of intent but despair, a choice no mother should face. The police's zeal—"you're going down"—and Inman's reliance on a glib WhatsApp quip ("play the mental health card") over her documented trauma skewed justice from the start. This was a railroad, not a trial.
The defence demands relief. If intent cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt, acquittal is just. If guilt stands, we appeal for a suspended sentence akin to Morrison's—six months, with community service—reflecting her low risk and remorse. The state sought a fall guy; they found a scapegoat. Lucy Connolly is no criminal mastermind but a grieving citizen caught in a judicial storm. Free her from this travesty, and restore faith in a system teetering on the edge. Justice, not politics, must prevail.
Thank you!
https://news.starknakedbrief.co.uk/p/lawyers-sickened-by-judiciarys-treatment
"It is many years since I clambered into a cage in Cambridge's King's Parade for Amnesty International and stared glumly through the bars at a photographer who snapped me for the front page of the student paper. On that drizzly, damp day, we were trying to draw attention to the plight of prisoners in authoritarian countries where people could be thrown into jail for no reason, except to deter other critics of the regime, and denied their basic human rights.
In the past few days, I've found myself wondering what that idealistic young student would have thought if you'd told her that, 40 years in the future, she would be writing about a woman thrown into jail in our own country largely to act as a warning to others. A widely-respected and adored childminder described by one parent as "the kindest British person I've met", a mother of two children (one living, one dead), a carer to a sick husband, by whose side she also appeared in his role as a Tory councillor.
As I write this, that woman is not only serving a sentence many legal experts consider to be outrageously harsh, but is being denied the opportunity for time at home with her family which is granted to jailmates around her who are guilty of actual physical harm. "You've upset a lot of people, Lucy," one probation officer explained when she asked why she was being denied ROTL (Release on Temporary Licence).
If the name Lucy Connolly rings a bell it's because she was one of the 1,500-plus people arrested in connection with the social unrest which followed the July 29 Southport massacre of three little girls at a Taylor Swift-themed dance class. In fact, that's not strictly accurate. Mrs Connolly, then aged 41 – she turned 42 in prison in January – played no part in the rioting, but a tweet she posted on the day when Elsie Dot Stancombe, Bebe King and Alice da Silva Aguiar were murdered by Axel Rudakubana was enough to get her arrested eight days later, and charged under Section 19 of the Public Order Act 1986, with publishing material intending to stir up racial hatred. …
So, this is a big question, I say to Ray Connolly, but do you think your wife is a kind of political prisoner?
Ray pats Harley's head and takes a swallow of tea before replying, "I think they want to use her as an example. Political? Maybe it could be deemed to be that way, but I think they like the idea of Lucy still being in prison just to send out a clear warning to people: 'You really need to watch what you say because, look! The consequences are going to be quite horrendous for you if you don't.'
"Put it this way, Allison, I think it certainly suits the narrative of the Government to have Lucy as their poster girl for racism, which is ridiculous when you know Lucy."
At one level, this is a terrible tragedy for a family that knows tragedy too well, but pull the camera back and we see the wider picture of free speech and where its limits lie. That's why Lucy's latest appeal is being funded by the Free Speech Union.
"Why are people more concerned by my political views than by the actual murder of three little girls?" demanded Lucy in one of her final tweets. She was right about the rush to deflection after the heinous Southport massacre. It seems to me the state knows that uncontrolled immigration has unleashed forces which it has no idea how to contain – namely that the suffering of white girls is a secondary consideration compared to avoiding the stirring up of racial hatred.
Diversity is not always a strength, sometimes it's a scary problem. The sticking-plaster solution is to silence those who express their distress, or turn them into witches.
So successful was the campaign to demonise Lucy Connolly that, until now, it has been taboo to suggest that her imprisonment is appalling. Many who heard about her draconian sentence may have thought, "She must have deserved it". Well, I hope I have offered some proof that is wrong, and that "Conservative councillor's racist wife" was a handy label to demonise a good person who made a dreadful mistake.
Lucy is a victim of two-tier justice. What has happened to her shames a free country, I think. It upsets everyone who knows her and loves her, and those who know her do love her.
On May 15, Lucy Connolly's case will be heard by the Court of Appeal. Pray for her.
Ray's words come back to me again: "Lucy basically had to admit she was the person she was the opposite of."