Lucy Connolly loses appeal over viral tweet as judges uphold sentence in closely watched case testing the limits of online speech and criminal responsibility.
The Court of Appeal—comprised of Lord Justice Holroyde, Mr Justice Goss and Mr Justice Sheldon—formally refused Lucy Connolly’s application for leave to appeal. Delivering the written judgment, Lord Justice Holroyde stated unequivocally:
“There is no arguable basis on which it could be said that the sentence imposed by the judge was manifestly excessive.”
The panel dismissed the appeal in full, with Lord Justice Holroyde further noting that the principal ground advanced by Connolly had been
“Substantially based on a version of events put forward by the applicant which we have rejected.”
The court concluded there was no legal error or misdirection in the sentencing exercise, and the application was refused.
Connolly will therefore continue to serve her sentence as originally ordered, subject to standard licence conditions upon release.
However, following months of scrutiny, we have become increasingly concerned by the manner in which this case has been presented by a number of social media-based commentators who style themselves as alleged independent journalists’. A noticeable pattern has emerged in which key elements of the case have been omitted or selectively framed, creating false narratives as to both the facts and the law.
CLICK THIS LINK FOR EXAMPLE FALSE NARRATIVES:
We feel it is essential, therefore, (no matter, however deeply unpopular this may be to some), to now present a complete and unbiased legal breakdown of what actually occurred, how sentencing law was applied, and why many of the claims circulating online fail to withstand proper legal scrutiny. What follows is a forensic, clear-sighted examination of the charge, the sentencing process, and the precise legal standards used throughout… But before we begin this legal analysis, a brief but important caveat.
At Video Production News, it’s our job to explain the law—how it functions in practice, how judgments are reached, and why certain outcomes occur within the framework of the legal system. But it’s equally important to recognise that just because we explain, it doesn’t mean we always agree with it.
This is, quite simply, another classic case of System vs Reality. The court applied the law precisely as it is written—following sentencing guidelines, precedents, and established procedures. On paper, the decision is legally sound. But in the real world, for many observing this case, the outcome feels jarringly out of step with fairness or common sense.
Now, I want to be clear: I say this with complete respect for the Court of Appeal and the rule of law. But in this instance, I do believe the appeal should have been granted. The sentence could and, in my view, should have been reduced to 24 months to reflect the unique and highly mitigating circumstances at play here.
However, the dissonance—between legal form and human reality—is not the fault of any single judge. It is a structural problem within the system itself.
And with that said, let’s look at the case in its entirety.
CASE AND SENTENCING
The sentencing of Lucy Connolly arose from a single, highly provocative tweet posted in the immediate aftermath of the fatal stabbing incident in Southport. The message read:
“Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f**** hotels full of the b******* for all I care, while you’re at it take the treacherous government politicians with them. I feel physically sick knowing what these families will now have to endure. If that makes me racist so be it.”**
This post was not only widely disseminated—viewed over 310,000 times and reposted by nearly 1,000 accounts—but published at a time of acute public sensitivity and growing unrest, in the direct wake of the fatal stabbing of the three young girls in Southport, which contributed to the Southport Riots last summer.
The offence was charged under section 19 of the Public Order Act 1986, which criminalises the publishing or distribution of written material intended or likely to stir up racial hatred.
The relevant part is subsection (1):
“A person who publishes or distributes written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting is guilty of an offence if –
(a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.”
As we can see, the offence can be committed without any specific intent, if racial hatred is in fact “likely to be stirred up” by the publication of the material. But Mrs Connolly’s charge specified the more serious version of the offence: that she “intended thereby to stir up racial hatred.”
In passing sentence, his Honour Judge Inman KC followed the for this specific offence. The court first assessed the two statutory thresholds of culpability and harm, placing Connolly squarely in Category A for culpability and Category 1 for harm—the most serious classifications available. But we must take into acount here that as regards sentencing guidelines as set out in S.59 of the Sentencing Act 2020: Judges and Magistates must:
“… in, sentencing an offender, follow any sentencing guidelines which are relevant to the offender’s case, … unless the court is satisfied that it would be contrary to the interests of justice to do so.”
So a judge’s or Magistrates discretion is thus constrained by the requirement to pass a sentence within the relevant guideline. It is only in very exceptional circumstances that they are entitled to depart from it. None of Mrs Connolly’s lawyers have ever suggested that these existed in her case.
It’s also important to fully understand the significance of Lucy Connolly entering a fully qualified guilty plea without a Basis of Plea. While this may appear puzzling to some, doing otherwise would more than likely have triggered what’s known as a Newton Hearing—a separate fact-finding process or mini court hearing to determine the contested elements of the case. Hoever, this would have inevitably delayed proceedings and, crucially, stripped away any sentencing discount typically afforded to those who plead guilty at an early stage and consequently further have increased her sentence.
In practical terms, it meant that to preserve any mitigation for admitting guilt, she had little choice but to enter an unqualified plea, even if she did not wholly accept the prosecution’s version of events. So because of this admission and guilty plea her culpability wasn't cross examined or questioned.
Culpability was considered high because the court found clear intent to incite serious racial violence, as supported by her guilty plea. Connolly had made her post at a time of heightened community tension, with wording calculated to inflame division and aggression. The harm was also found to be substantial. The content had been crafted for maximum online amplification, using social media to weaponise the message in a manner that, according to the judge, could have “endangered lives” had unrest followed.
The starting point under the guidelines for an offence falling into Category A/1 is three years' immediate custody, prior to any adjustments for aggravating or mitigating features.
There were, in this case, multiple aggravating factors that pushed the court to uplift from that starting point. Notably, Connolly’s post was timed during the peak of national unease, exploiting the developing situation in Southport. Her post-offence conduct also significantly worsened her position. Evidence presented in court showed Connolly had sent several derogatory WhatsApp messages following the tweet, including one reading:
“Raging tweet about burning down hotels has bit me on the arse, LoL 😂”
And another one clearly stating:
"I’ll just play the mental health card if they come for me.”
A later tweet continued in the same racial tone, referencing a recent sword attack, she posted:3
“I bet my house it was one of these boat invaders.”
She also sent a message to about intending to continuing working her notice period as a childminder
"On the Sly"
Despite being legally deregistered from doing so at the time!
Suggesting to the court a wilful disregard for regulatory enforcement. The judge determined that these messages removed any realistic claim to remorse, and actively aggravated the offence by showing dishonesty, contempt for due process, and persistent racial hostility.
Mitigating factors were limited but acknowledged. Connolly had no prior convictions, was previously of good character, and received several character references from her community. There was mention of past bereavement involving the loss of a young child, and some suggestion of private regret, but the court found her post-offence behaviour to have overridden any genuine insight or contrition.
The court applied the standard 25% reduction for her guilty plea, which was entered at the Plea and Trial Preparation Hearing (PTPH).
After considering the aggravating and mitigating elements, Judge Inman KC determined that a modest uplift from the 3-year baseline was justified. Applying the guilty plea reduction, he imposed a final sentence of 31 months' custody.
This approach reflects a methodical and textbook application of the Sentencing Guidelines, and is not out of step with comparative case law.
In a separate but related prosecution, a man named Tyler Kay was also convicted of posting very similar messages in fact almost identical ones to Connolly’s tweet, again directing people to burn down asylum hotels and received 38 months’ custody.
The higher sentence in that instance reflected additional factors specific to Kay’s case, but both sentences fall well within the expected range for incitement offences with widespread dissemination and volatile social context.
Much of the public discourse around Connolly’s sentence has falsely framed the issue as a case of free speech or simple bad taste. In fact, the offence hinges on intent to stir up racial hatred, which is a serious criminal act in UK law. The wording of her message, the timing, the deliberate racial targeting, and the online reach placed it firmly in the realm of criminal incitement, not political commentary.
Also Much of the the reporting suggesting merely because Lucy Connolly “poses no threat to society” fails to recognise that prison is not only for incapacitating dangerous offenders, but also serves as a punitive and deterrent measure — demonstrating that breaches of UK law carry serious consequences.
This principle is equally evident in cases of benefit fraud, where individuals with no history of violence and no risk to public safety are still imprisoned to uphold the law and maintain public confidence in the justice system.
Importantly, the sentencing judge noted that mitigation must be earned. While Connolly’s earlier life and circumstances were noted, her post-offence communications—especially those sent via WhatsApp—actively stripped away much of her potential mitigation. They indicated cynicism, dishonesty, and a lack of remorse, all of which were squarely weighed against her.
Against this legal background, the sentence of 31 months' custody is not only proportionate, it is arguably modest given the seriousness of the offending, the context, and the aggravating features. The sentence stands up to scrutiny under the Sentencing Council framework and aligns precisely with both the letter and spirit of the law as it applies to racial incitement online.
And one final point needs to be made. Judge Inman – cannot possibly be blamed for placing Mrs Connolly’s case into Category 1A for sentencing purposes. Both prosecution and defence agreed that it had to be. And in fairness to Mrs Connolly she does not blame him for it, even now.
She blames her solicitor. Of course a different judge might have passed a heavier or a lighter sentence, but any suggestion that Judge Inman was influenced by political pressure to impose a heavier sentence than Mrs Connolly would otherwise have received is a totally ludicrous conspiracy theory.
Unsubstantiated attacks on the integrity (as opposed to the judgement) of judges are unfair because judges are not allowed to respond. They are also dangerous, because without trust in the integrity of judges there can be no trust in the integrity of the legal system, without which no free society can hope to survive.
CONCLUSION:
The reporting of the Lucy Connolly case has been marred by significant misrepresentation, primarily due to the dissemination of incomplete or misleading information by individuals lacking formal legal training. This trend has led to a proliferation of narratives that diverge from the factual and legal realities of the case.
A critical examination reveals that many accounts have omitted essential details, such as the specific legal statutes under which Connolly was charged and the context of her actions. For instance, her conviction under Section 19 of the Public Order Act 1986 for publishing material intended to stir up racial hatred is a pivotal aspect that has often been underreported. Furthermore, the timing of her post—immediately following the Southport stabbings—and its content, which included calls for violence against asylum seekers, are crucial elements that underscore the severity of the offence.
The legal proceedings also highlighted aggravating factors, including Connolly's lack of alleged lack of remorse and subsequent communications that suggested an intent to continue working illegally as a childminder despite deregistration. These aspects were instrumental in the sentencing decision but have frequently been overlooked in public discourse.
In my own view, even within the confines of the Sentencing Guidelines, the balance of mitigation clearly outweighed aggravation here. A sentence of 24 months would have been entirely justifiable, likely rendering this entire appeal unnecessary—and she would now be free. If such an outcome is deemed impermissible, then it raises serious and pressing questions about the Sentencing Guidelines themselves, going forward.
However, in contrast, comparative analysis with similar cases,at the time, such as that of Tyler Kay, who received a 38-month sentence for analogous offences, further contextualises the judiciary's approach to such matters. Kay's actions, including posting one almost identical to Connolly's message and advocating for violence against specific groups, were met with swift legal action, reflecting the seriousness with which such offences are treated.
The misreporting of Connolly's case underscores the necessity for accurate and comprehensive legal journalism, by not legally illiterate journalists, who appear currently . It is imperative that reporting on legal matters be grounded in factual accuracy and a thorough understanding of the legal framework to
Well, that’s all for now. But until our next article, please stay tuned, stay informed, but most of all stay safe, and I’ll see you then.
Credit to Edward Alexander @Edwarda2971214
for his additional research for this article.