View The Story of the Group flipbook.
The Story of the Group, the Hidden Plan, and the Police Officer Once upon a time, there was a group of people who were accused of working together to make another person's life very difficult. The police did not yet know whether all the accusations were true, so they decided to investigate each person's actions carefully. Step 1 — Making the plan The group allegedly talked to each other and created a story about the woman. They told other people: “She wants a man to give her money.” But they allegedly did not tell people about the things they themselves were doing. A police officer thought: “I need to find out who started this story and what they knew.” If people actually agreed together to commit a crime, the police would consider whether conspiracy or other joint criminal responsibility applied. Step 2 — Passing the story around One person allegedly told another person. That person allegedly told someone else. Then some men allegedly heard the story and approached the woman. The police officer asked: “Who told each person?” “What exactly were they told?” “Did anyone encourage them to bother her?” If somebody knowingly helped or encouraged another person to commit a crime, the police would consider the relevant rules about participation, aiding, abetting or inciting. Step 3 — Sending people towards her The woman said: “No. I don't want this. Please leave me alone.”
But the alleged group continued. The police officer asked: “Did the people know she had said no?” “Did somebody encourage them to keep going?” If the evidence showed repeated unwanted conduct that caused fear or alarm, the police could consider stalking under section 39 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010. If the behaviour involved threatening or abusive conduct, section 38 could also be relevant. Step 4 — Making the story look true Imagine some children secretly take all the crayons from another child. Then they say: “Look! She doesn't have any crayons!” But they don't tell anyone: “We took them.” That would be leaving out an important part of the story. The woman alleges that the group did something similar: They allegedly created problems. Then: They allegedly pointed to those problems as proof that their story about her was true. The police officer therefore wanted to know: “Did they create the circumstances they were later talking about?” Step 5 — Working as a team The police officer drew a picture: Person A tells the story ⬇️
Person B passes the story to another person ⬇️ Person C approaches the woman ⬇️ Woman says “No” ⬇️ Person D allegedly continues the behaviour ⬇️ Group allegedly tells the story again The officer said: “I must find out what each person actually did.” Knowing someone in the group would not be enough to make them guilty. There would need to be evidence connecting each person to an offence. Step 6 — The police look at prejudice The woman also said that she believed she was being targeted because she is Arab and because of her religious identity. The police officer therefore asked: “Were any crimes committed because of racial or religious prejudice?” If an underlying offence was established and the statutory requirements were met, the police could consider racial or religious aggravation under the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021. The officer would look for evidence such as words, messages, communications and behaviour showing the connection between the alleged offending and the prejudice.
Step 7 — The police put the puzzle together The officer put all the pieces on his desk: 🧩 Who started the story? 🧩 Who passed it on? 🧩 Who encouraged other people? 🧩 Who approached the woman? 🧩 Who continued after she said no? 🧩 Did people communicate with one another? 🧩 Did anyone help someone else? 🧩 Was there stalking or threatening behaviour? 🧩 Was racial or religious prejudice involved? The officer did not simply say: “Everyone in the group is guilty.” Instead, he said: “I will investigate every person and every piece of evidence.”
What laws might the police consider? For a five-year-old, the simple version is: What allegedly happened Possible law to consider People repeatedly followed or watched someone and caused fear or alarm Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010, s.39 — stalking People used threatening or abusive behaviour 2010 Act, s.38 — threatening or abusive behaviour People knowingly helped or encouraged another person to offend Scottish criminal-law principles concerning participation / art and part liability People agreed together to pursue a criminal purpose Conspiracy principles, if the legal requirements are established An underlying crime was connected with racial prejudice Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021, s.1 An underlying crime was connected with religious prejudice 2021 Act, s.2 Racially aggravated harassment was established 2021 Act, s.3 Conduct potentially involved stirring up hatred 2021 Act, relevant stirring-up provisions, if the specific legal test is satisfied The big lesson A good police officer would say: “I will not just look at the person at the end of the chain. I will look at the whole chain.” He would find out: Who started it → who joined in → who helped → who encouraged → what happened to the woman → what evidence exists → and whether any laws were broken. And most importantly: “Nobody is guilty just because someone says they are. But nobody should be ignored just because the conduct is complicated. We investigate the evidence and let the law decide.”