and:

Primary evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, from which it can be deduced or inferred that the offender has a hostility towards people (or one person) of a particular race or religion. The kind of evidence will vary from case to case but may well include, for instance:
words, whether contemporaneous or not;
writings;
social media postings;
insignia;
membership of far right groups
presence with others promoting such hostility or association with them;
previous incidents of hostility, e.g. targeting only persons of a particular religion as the victims of criminal attacks or forms of abuse, such as a Jewish person's house for criminal damage but no other houses in the same street; and
previous convictions for offences directed at similar victims.
Evidence from which it can be inferred that the current offence is motivated by the hostility referred to. In some cases the existence of the hostility and the fact of its contribution to motivation may derive from the same evidence and may be direct and simple: for example, the words accompanying the conduct element of the offence, as reported by the victim, may make clear the hostility of the offender for persons of a particular race or religion and the association of the feeling with the commission of the offence. In other cases a more determined search for such evidence will be necessary.

Posted By: Worzel Scrimmage, Apr 4, 23:18:45