Supervision

Chara is currently supervising the following PhD students:

• Sanjana Karnik (AI and autonomous weapons systems)
• Fabiana Ciccarella (anti-migrant hate speech).

Chara welcomes applications from research students on any aspects of hate crime, hate speech, regulation of social media and AI.

Chara's research interests lie in the area of criminal law, and she is particularly interested in the intersection between crime and technology.  She has a particular expertise in hate crime and hate speech, and her current focus is on the regulation of online hate, and on the liability of social media companies.  

She was recently seconded to the Ethical AI Institute, based at Oxford Brookes as Head of Social Sciences Research.  She is currently leading a project on how AI can be used to make online dating safer for all.

Her work has been cited extensively in a number of law reform projects relating to hate crime and online communications by the Law Commission, and also by Lord Bracadale's reform of hate crime law in Scotland.  She was a member of Judge Marrinan's Core Expert Group as part of his review of Northern Irish hate crime legislation.  Her work has also been cited in various Parliamentary Reports, and she has completed a number of projects for the Council of Europe.  She is regularly consulted by various law reform and governmental bodies both nationally and internationally for her expertise on hate speech.

She is an AHRC Peer Reviewer and is the national reporter for Hate Speech for the British Association of Comparative Law (BACL).

She recently appeared on Radio 4's File on Four as part of a documentary on racist tweets sent to footballers.

Journal articles

• Bakalis C, Hornle J, 'The Role of Social Media Companies in the Regulation of Online Hate'
  Studies in Law, Politics and Society 85 (2021) pp.75-100
  ISSN: 1059-4337 eISSN: 978-1-83867-058-0
  Abstract

  This article is about online hate speech propagated via platforms operated by social media companies (SMCs). It examines the options open to states in forcing SMCs to take responsibility for the hateful content that appears on their sites.  It examines the technological and legal context for imposing legal obligations on SMCs, and analyses initiatives in Germany, the UK, the EU and elsewhere.  It argues that whilst SMCs can play a role in controlling online hate speech, there are limitations to what they can achieve.

  Website 
• Bakalis C, Lloyd C, 'Editorial. Dangerous speech and images: regulating the internet'
  Information and Communications Technology Law 27 (1) (2018) pp.1-3
  ISSN: 1360-0834 eISSN: 1469-8404
  Website 
• Bakalis Z, 'Rethinking cyberhate laws'
  Information and Communications Technology Law 27 (1) (2017) pp.86-110
  ISSN: 1360-0834 eISSN: 1469-8404
  Abstract Cyberhate is a growing problem. There is legislation in place that can be used to tackle various aspects of online hate, but in practice, the existing offences are difficult to use. The law is fragmented, and does not capture the true nature of internet hate or provide adequate protection to victims. This piece evaluates the current provisions and concludes with a framework for creating new legislation to tackle cyberhate which will be easier for the police and prosecutors to use, which will reflect more clearly the harm caused by hate on the internet, and which is also compatible with freedom of expression.Website 
• Chara Bakalis, 'The Victims of Hate Crime and the Principles of the Criminal Law'
  Legal Studies 37 (4) (2017) pp.718-738
  ISSN: 0261-3875 eISSN: 1748-121X
  Abstract There is an ongoing debate amongst hate crime scholars about the categories of victims which should be included within hate crime legislation.  Some commentators argue that affording protection to groups based on pre-defined characteristics results in many victims being excluded from the legislation.  They would prefer a more inclusive approach which would offer protection to a potentially limitless number of groups. This paper considers the question from a doctrinal perspective, and argues that a principled way of deciding the characteristics of hate crime is required.  It will conclude that the core concern of hate crime legislation is with the furthering of the broader equality agenda and, as such, the victims of hate crime should form an exclusive group based on those characteristics protected under equality legislation.  This approach can help provide a theoretical framework for hate crime legislation which can be more easily accommodated within criminal law principles.
  Website 
• Bakalis C, 'Legislating Against Hatred: The Law Commission's Report on Hate Crime'
  Criminal Law Review -London- x (3) (2015) pp.177-191
  ISSN: 0011-135X
  Abstract
  The issue of hate crime and how to tackle it has become of increasing significance over the last two decades, particularly in light of the murder of Stephen Lawrence in 1993. Although incitement to racial hatred offences existed under the Public Order Act 1986 (POA), the Government introduced specific legislation to tackle racist hate crime under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (CDA). These offences created aggravated versions of basic offences which were committed when an offender was motivated by or demonstrated racial hostility. Religion was added
  to the CDA provisions in 20013 and to the POA in 2006, whilst the POA provisions were further extended to sexual orientation in 2008. The CDA also introduced a sentencing provision which in its current form under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA) requires all sentencing judges to take account of any hostility towards race, religion, sexual orientation, disability and transgender identity as an aggravating feature which increases the level of punishment an offender may receive. Although opinion is divided as to whether a state should introduce targeted legislation in
  order to tackle hate crime, hate crime statutes now appear in many jurisdictions across the world. 
  In March 2012, the Hate Crime Action Plan was launched which sought to outline the Government’s strategy for reducing the levels of hate crime experienced by victims. Combatting hate crime is seen as central to ensuring that as a society we “embrace [the] rich mix of different races, cultures, beliefs, attitudes and lifestyles” that exist in Britain today. Effective legislation is at the heart of the Hate Crime Action Plan and is fundamental to its success. With this in mind, in

  November 2012 the Ministry of Justice, as part of a cross-departmental Government initiative on hate crime, asked the Law Commission to consider the case for broadening the scope of the CDA and POA provisions to bring them into line with the greater range of victims protected under the CJA. The Law Commission published its final report on the matter in May 2014 in a report entitled Hate Crime: Should the Current Offences be Extended? This article seeks to assess the Law Commission’s recommendations. In the first section a summary of the current law will be provided, followed by a brief overview of the recommendations. The subsequent sections will deal with each of the recommendations in more detail. It will be argued that the review of the CDA offences recommended by the Law Commission should be extended to include the entire legislative framework which deals with hate crime. This is because reform in this area has been piecemeal, resulting in a disordered set of laws which do not necessarily give effective protection to hate crime victims. Examining the CDA in isolation from the CJA and the POA will not satisfactorily address the problems with the current legislation, and runs the risk of overlooking

  the importance of assessing these provisions as a comprehensive body of hate crime law.
  
  
• Bakalis C, 'The religion of the offender and the concept of equality in the sentencing process'
  Oxford Journal of Law and Religion - (-) (2013) pp.--
  ISSN: 2047-0770
  Abstract

  This article examines the concept of ‘equality' in the context of the sentencing of religious offenders. Judges are often reluctant to consider the importance of the religious beliefs of the offender during sentencing for fear that this is tantamount to giving them an advantage over non-religious offenders. This article explores the extent to which the religion of the offender should be taken into account at the sentencing stage in light of a more fully developed concept of ‘equality' which has emerged from discrimination law. It will be argued that ‘formal equality' requires that the religion of the offender be taken into account where it fits with established grounds relevant to ‘offence seriousness' or mitigation, and that the concept of ‘substantive equality' requires deeper consideration to be given to how established sentencing principles may have a greater impact on the protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010, such as religion.

  Website 
• Bakalis C, Edge P, 'Sentencing and the religious defendant: The constraints of the European Convention on Human Rights'
  European Human Rights Law Review 5 (2009) pp.659-669
  ISSN: 1361-1526
  Abstract

  The function of religion in the sentencing phase of a criminal trial has been comparatively neglected. The structure of the European Convention does not leave it open simply to ignore religion in sentencing--that route to neutrality in relation to religion has been closed. Instead, the developing jurisprudence under the Convention has created obligations in relation to both the manifestation of religion through offending, and the treatment of repeat, conscientious offenders. These obligations have the potential to give too much emphasis to the protection of religious conviction over other pressing state interests, in particular the rights and interests of others, and need to be read narrowly.

• Bakalis C, Edge P, 'Taking due account of religion in sentencing'
  Legal Studies 29 (3) (2009) pp.421-437
  ISSN: 0261-3875 eISSN: 1748-121X
  Abstract

  This paper explores the relationship between religion and sentencing. It considers what problems may arise when a judge fails to take proper account of a defendant's religious beliefs at the sentencing stage, or takes improper account. It highlights the need for more guidance to be given to judges in order to ensure greater consistency and fairness in sentencing outcomes.

  Website 
• , ''Asbos "Preventative orders" and the European Court of Human Rights''
  European Human Rights Law Review (2007)
  ISSN: 1361-1526
  
• Nash D, Bakalis C, 'Incitement to Religious Hatred and the 'Symbolic': How Will the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 Work?'
  Liverpool Law Review 28 (3) (2007) pp.349-375
  ISSN: 0144-932X
  Abstract

  This article examines the new offence of inciting religious hatred under the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006. A historical analysis of existing provisions aimed at legislating against racial hatred and blasphemy is adopted, in order to determine whether the creation of this new offence is justified and necessary. We conclude that although the new offence may fulfil an important symbolic role in a post September 11th environment, in its current form the legislation has not taken sufficient account of the precedent of racial hatred and blasphemy laws, or of more general questions about the criminalisation of hatred.

  Website 

Book chapters

• Bakalis Z, 'Regulating Hate Crime in the Digital Age' in Mark Walters and Jennifer Schweppe (ed.), The Globalisation of Hate: Internationalising Hate Crime?, OUP (2016)
  ISBN: 9780198785668 eISBN: 9780191827730
  Abstract This chapter explores the particular challenges that globalization poses to the combating of online hatred. It discusses the ways in which the regulation of online hate crime and hate speech differs from the regulation of ‘offline’ hate, and reflects on the specific problems that globalization brings to this area. It evaluates current international responses to online hatred, and puts forward suggestions for improvement. It will argue that the issues surrounding freedom of speech, and the harm caused by cyberhate, need to be reconsidered in light of the way in which online hatred is committed. It suggests that a united global response is the most effective way to make progress, but also acknowledges that differing cultural and legal norms make this a slow and difficult process.Website 

Other publications

• Bakalis Z, 'Cyberhate: an issue of continued concern for the Council of Europe's Anti-Racism Commission'
  Report written for the Council of Europe's Anti-racism Commission (ECRI) (2015) Abstract Fifteen years after the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) issued its General Policy Recommendation (GPR) No. 6 on Combating the dissemination of racist, xenophobic and antisemitic material via the Internet, cyberhate is still a recurring issue in its reports. Through a thorough examination of ECRI’s country reports over four monitoring cycles, Bakalis demonstrates that while GPR No. 6 has had a substantial impact on efforts to combat cyberhate, much remains to be done.Website 

Anti-social behaviour: local authority responsibility and the voice of the victim. Cambridge Law Journal, 2003, 62(2), 305-334/, co-written with Susan Bright

ASBOs - Criminal Penalties or Civil Injunctions?, Cambridge Law Journal 2003, 62 (3), 583-586 , 2003

Conferences

 ‘Online Hate’, Equally ours and Oxford Brookes conference on ‘Online Hate Crime and Hate Speech’, London, 2019 

‘Online Harms White Paper’, Equally Ours, Hate Crime Advisory Group, London, 2019 

‘Online Harms White Paper: How to define harmful content online and how to scope the statutory duty of care & the Codes of Practice’ Online Harms Seminar, Queen Mary, London University, June 2019 

‘Online hate: Extending protection to gender and disability’, Policy Summit on Disablist/Misogynist Hate Speech, UEA, June 2019 

‘The Legal Regulation of Online Hate’ Law Commission Hate Crime Launch Event and Academic Consultation, Oxford Brookes, March 2019 

'Moderation in all things? The role of the media' Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, at event ‘A More Social Media:  Human Rights in the Digital Public Sphere’, Dublin, November 2018 

'Regulating Online Hate' SLS Conference, Queen Mary University, London, September 2018

'The Role of Third Party Intermediaries in the Regulation of Online Hate' INHS Conference, University of Ontario, Institute of Technology, Canada, May 2018

'Online Intermediaries and Hate' Wolverhampton University, May 2018

'Regulating Hate Crime and Hate Speech in England and Wales', International Symposium, Hate Crime:  State of Affairs from a Comparative Perspective, Bilbao, September 2017

'Taking Action Against Hate-Crime in Post-Brexit Britain:  Protecting Vulnerable Groups and Promoting a Culture of Tolerance and Inclusivity' by Public Policy Exchange. Chair.  London, June 2017.

'Regulating Online Hate' Hate Crime in Europe Conference, Gothenberg University, Sweden, February 2017

‘Reforming Cyberhate Laws’ Law Reform Now Conference, Sussex University, September 2016

‘Cyberhate Regulation’ SLS Conference, Oxford University, September 2016 

‘Rethinking Cyberhate’ Rethinking Cybercrime Conference, UCLAN, June 2016

‘The Power of the Electronic Word’ HSS Research Conference, Oxford Brookes University, June 2016

‘The Victims of Hate Crime’ International Network for Hate Studies Conference, Limerick University, May 2016

‘Regulating Hate in the Digital Age’ Globalisation and Hate Conference, Sussex University, May 2015

'Equality and the Victims of Hate Crime' International Network for Hate Studies Conference, Sussex University, May 2014

'Regulating Hate Speech Online' International Network for Hate Studies Conference, Sussex University, May 2014

'Legislating Against Hatred:  The Law Commission Proposals on Extending Existing Hate Crime Legislation' SLS, Edinburgh, September 2013

'The Religion of the Offender and the Concept of Equality in the Sentencing Process'   LARSN, Cardiff, May 2013

'Hate Crimes and Equality, Hate and Blame Colloquium', Oxford Brookes, June 2012

'Taking Due Account of Religion in Sentencing' at the Crime, Religion and History Conference, Oxford Brookes, January 2008

‘Racial and Religious Hatred: A History of Hate Crime’ OBU, May 2007

‘Anti-Social Behaviour Law: Lessons from America’ Comparative Perspectives on Legal Problems, OBU, September 2006,

‘Asbos and Human Rights’ Human Rights Forum, OBU, February 2005

'Anti-Social Behaviour Law: Lessons from America' SLS Sheffield September 2004

‘The Use and Abuse of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders’ SLSA, Nottingham Law School, April 2003