Lucy Connolly shouldn’t be in prison
Even Southport rioters received more lenient sentences than she did.
Riots are, thankfully, relatively rare in the UK. This is in large part thanks to the deterrent effect of the British justice system’s quick and harsh sentencing for rioters. Before last August, the last widespread social disorder we had in this country was in 2011. Then, disturbances took root across the UK, sparked by the killing of Mark Duggan, a young black man who was shot by police. The state response to this unrest through the courts was punitive. Over 2,000 people were convicted. No comparable insurrection happened for another 13 years.
Swift and severe punishment works. But it is also a blunt instrument that can cause some high-profile collateral damage to individuals and to confidence in the justice system. Cracking down so hard on the riots of 2024 – which had a markedly different context to those in 2011 – may have inflamed emotions, not dampened them down. The case of Lucy Connolly exemplifies this point.
Connolly is the wife of a Conservative councillor, with no previous convictions and good standing in her community. Last October, she was sentenced to 31 months in prison for inciting racial hatred via a social-media post related to the Southport attacks. The massacre of three young children at a Taylor Swift-themed dance class last July by Axel Rudakubana sparked six days of rioting across the country. This was fuelled by Merseyside Police’s mangled reporting of the incident, as well as by online speculation and disinformation about the suspect. Amid this, Connolly wrote on X:
‘Mass deportation now, set fire to all the fucking hotels full of the bastards 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.’
Her post was viewed 310,000 times and reposted 940 times, before she deleted it. In my view, it was racist, dangerous and clearly broke the law. We should also bear in mind that premises thought to be occupied by asylum seekers were subsequently attacked by rioters and set on fire, terrifying those inside. The question is, did her sanction fit the crime? The answer cannot be yes.
Connolly was not physically involved in any rioting, and there is no direct evidence that her short-lived tweet incited anyone to do anything in the real world. Her tweet can be read in totality as an emotional, if misguided, reaction to the pain that would be suffered by the bereaved families. Yet her prison sentence is comparable and, in some cases, even exceeds the punishments handed down to actual rioters, who injured police officers and attacked buildings. Philip Prescott, for example, was convicted of violent disorder during riots in Southport in July, as part of a mob attacking a mosque. The judge at Liverpool Crown Court said his offence was ‘clearly racially or religiously motivated disorder’. He received a sentence of 28 months.
In Connolly’s case, there seemed to be many personal mitigating factors that were either downplayed or ignored during the trial. Namely, her mental health, the fact that she has a 12-year-old daughter and the fact she is the carer for her ill husband. An appeal is pending, where it will be argued that her offence was misclassified. Her defence will claim it ought to have been one with a lower starting point for custody, which would have triggered a suspended sentence. But for now, Connolly is still in prison, separated from her sick husband and traumatised daughter, while the wheels of due process grind slowly and grudgingly on.
To make matters worse, Connolly is being denied release on a temporary licence, which would allow her to reunite with her family. This is usually granted to offenders who are a low risk to the community. She has apparently been waiting for four months to receive a verdict on an early release via such a temporary licence. There has been no explanation from the Ministry of Justice about exactly why this is, but internal prison information obtained by the Telegraph suggests that the delay is because of ‘media interest’ – a fact that ought to be largely irrelevant to a risk assessment. By all accounts, she has been an exemplary prisoner who qualified for an ‘enhanced regime’. This is given to prisoners who demonstrate good behaviour and a willingness to comply with sentence-plan targets. On these facts, it is very difficult to avoid the conclusion that someone is putting a spanner in the works.
The issue of Connolly’s incarceration goes beyond her distressing personal circumstances. It feeds a narrative already ripe with examples that we have a two-tier criminal justice system, where ‘low-hanging fruit’ – like a white, middle-class housewife who posted a stupid and malignant tweet in the heat of the moment – are treated with disproportionate severity. Meanwhile, promised investigations into the sexual exploitation of children by South Asian men dribbles into the sand.
The framing of these glaring differences is driving us deeper into a low-trust society. It is no use pretending they don’t exist or suggesting that they exist only in the minds of bigots. Of course, we must never downplay the personal responsibility of rioters who created havoc on our streets. I have no problem with severe sentences for those who attacked police officers, other people or property. A lot of the people banged up deserved what they got. But not Lucy Connolly.
Ian Acheson is a former prison governor. He was also director of community safety at the Home Office.