These tweets by Bell Ribeiro-Addy Labour MP for Streatham are not unusual.
She calls our justice system “state sanctioned racism” thereby demonising our society and instilling distrust in non-Whites. It’s posts like hers, that mean articles like ours are necessary. In it we review information presented in three reports on the criminal justice system, and look at what they tell us about the system itself and the duplicity of those in positions of authority.
- Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic disproportionality in the Criminal Justice System (2016)
- Building Trust – How our courts can improve the criminal court experience for Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic defendants (2017)
- The Lammy Review, An independent review into the treatment of, and outcomes for, Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic individuals in the Criminal Justice System (2017)
- PDF’s of Reports reviewed in this article
The main narrative of these reports is non-Whites are at the receiving end of worse treatment than White people, and/or are being forced to act differently (to their disadvantage) because of the nature of their relationship with [White] society. This, they argue, reveals itself through ‘disproportionality’. That is the difference in the relative number of Whites and non-Whites at key decision points in the criminal justice system.
In reviewing the disproportionality described in these reports we have added the term ‘adverse’ to help give clarity to our review. This word is not used in the reports, though it is inferred.
These are our findings from our analysis of these reports:
1/ The only substantial area of difference in the criminal justice system is the higher proportion of non-Whites arrested as compared to Whites. Even here the difference is not consistent. More Black people are arrested than Whites but, with the exception of adult Asian males, fewer Asians are. Differences later in the system are much smaller and there are few consistent patterns across race, sex or age. Many of the differences that do exist can be explained by decisions made by individuals within each group.
2/ Where disproportionality adversely affects non-Whites this is framed as being due to the system, which they argue needs to be changed to accommodate these groups. The possibility of non-Whites having to deal with their own issues and conform to the existing justice system is not considered, let alone supported.
3/ Whether intentional or unintentional these reports do nothing to help improve the lives of non-Whites. Their focus, which explains away the decisions of non-Whites by blaming the system, infantilises non-Whites making them less accountable for their own behaviour and reducing their incentive to change.
4/ The clear message from the Building Trust report is that non-Whites cannot be expected to feel they receive fair treatment until they are judged by their own race.
5/ Throughout these reports the needs of White people are disregarded.
Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic disproportionality in the Criminal Justice System (2016)
This report looks at disproportionality in the criminal justice system. That is the ratio of non-Whites to Whites at decision points in the system, taking into account their relative numbers in the overall population. The report highlights that while it tries to compare like-for-like cases by controlling for gender, age and offence type it takes no account of the existence or level of violence of the committed offence nor geographical variation. The diagram below illustrates the flow of defendants through the system.
Language and focus
The language of the report is notable, as shown by the extracts below. Rather than talk about disproportionality as it affects all races, the report focuses on non-Whites. While it identifies that disproportionally adversely affects Whites in many areas of the criminal justice system, the concluding paragraph talks about creating a fairer system for non-Whites only. Fairness for White people is not called for.
- Section 1. Introduction
Section 6. Implications
Impact of race on behaviour
The report rarely talks about the relationship between race and criminal activity. However early on the author, Noah Uhrig, points the finger at Whites suggesting they are more likely to commit crime. The extract below states “Although empirical analysis of self-reported offending suggests BAME groups are less likely to commit crime…”.
Arrests, Charging Decisions and Magistrates or Crown Court
Data for arrest, charging and prosecutions is given below in Table 5.1. Highlights show where disproportionality adversely affects Whites, figures without highlights show where disproportionality adversely affects non-Whites.
Adverse disproportionality for Whites:
- Young Asian males (0.66*) are significantly less likely to be arrested than their White counterparts.
- Young Asians females (0.25*) are significantly less likely to be arrested than their White counterparts.
- Black adult males (0.98*) are significantly less likely to be charged than their White counterparts.
Adverse disproportionality for non-Whites:
- Young Black males (2.77*) are significantly more likely to be arrested than their White counterparts.
- Young Asian males (2.44*) are significantly more likely to proceed to the Magistrates Court than their White counterparts.
Arrests in context The data clearly shows disproportionality affects races differently at different points of the criminal justice system. It is at the arrest stage that the greatest consistent disparity between Whites and non-Whites is observed. But even this difference is not clear cut. Whites are less likely to be arrested than Blacks, but young Asian males and young and adult Asian females are less likely to be arrested than their White counterparts.
At subsequent stages of the system the differences between races are smaller and notably some are adverse to Whites, and others to non-Whites. There are few consistent patterns and there are also notable differences between ages and sexes within each racial group. For example young Black males are more likely to be charged (1.07*) than their White counterparts, but adult Black males (0.98*) are all less likely to be.
Effectively the report shows that disproportionality in the prison population is largely explained by differences in numbers arrested. Differences later in the system are small with little consistency in the racial group affected. The question this prompts is, is the difference in arrests due to bias against certain groups or are there real differences in criminal activity? That question is anathema to our institutions.
Charging decision Crown Prosecution Service charging decisions sometimes slightly favoured non-Whites groups, sometimes White groups, sometimes there was no significant difference.
More likely to be charged than White counterparts:
- Black male youth *
- Mixed male youth *
- Mixed male adults *
- Mixed female youth
Less likely to be charged than White counterparts:
- Black male adults *
- Asian male adults *
- Asian male youth
- Black female youth
- Asian female adults
- Black female adults
- Mixed female adults
* indicates a significant difference
An Aside This report was published in 2016, yet four years later some of our MPs, such as Bell Ribeiro-Addy are still ignorant of its content, or choose to disregard it to make political capital over the death of a Black man in the US. Black people in the UK do not suffer [adverse] disproportionality at every stage of the justice system.
Magistrates Court or Crown Court Offences are categorised under three headings. Summary offences which are generally the least serious types of criminal offences. They can be tried only in the magistrates court. Indictable offences which are considered to be the more serious offences. They are always tried at the Crown Court, where sentencing powers are considerably greater.
The third category of offenses are the ‘triable-either-way cases’, which as the name suggests may be tried in either the Magistrates or the Crown Court. There are two main reasons why a defendant facing an either-way offence will be sent for trial to the Crown Court; because the case is deemed too serious to remain in the Magistrates Court or because the defendant elects trial in the Crown Court.
The study found that, with the exception of young Black females, all non-White groups were more likely to be tried at the Crown Court than the equivalent White groups. David Lammy’s report identifies that this is in part due to non-Whites opting for a jury trial at the Crown Court.
Lammy Review looked at in more detail
later in this article
Convictions and Custodial Sentences
Data for convictions and custodial sentences of those who are tried in a Magistrates Court is given below in Table 5.2. Highlights show where disproportionality adversely affects Whites, figures without highlights are where disproportionality adversely affects non-Whites.
There is no consistent pattern evident from this data.
- Young Black males (0.97*) are significantly less likely to be convicted than their White counterparts, but where they are convicted they are more likely to be given a custodial sentence (1.23*)
- Conversely adult Black males (1.04*) are significantly more likely to be convicted than their White counterparts but where they are convicted they are less likely to be given a custodial sentence (0.83*).
Where non-Whites are combined into a single group, young non-Whites are less likely to be convicted (0.98 male and 0.98 female) than their White counterparts, while adult non-Whites are more likely to be convicted (1.08* male and 1.24* female).
More likely to be given a custodial sentence than White counterparts:
- Black male youth *
- Mixed male youth *
- Asian male youth
- Mixed female adults
Less likely to be given a custodial sentence than White counterparts:
- Black male adults *
- Asian male adults *
- Mixed male adults *
- Black female adults
- Asian female adults
Notably, adult Black men are about 20% less likely than White men to be sentenced to custody at magistrates’ court.
* indicates a significant difference
Data for convictions and custodial sentences of those who are tried in a Crown Court is given in Table 5.3. Highlights show where disproportionality adversely affects Whites, figures without highlights are where disproportionality adversely affects non-Whites.
Guilty or not guilt plea One measure that is consistent across non-White groups of all ages is disproportionality in terms of pleading not guilty. Without exception all non-White groups plead not guilty more often than their White counterparts. This has a direct impact on sentencing as offenders who plead guilty will usually receive a reduced sentence, compared to the sentence they would have received had they been convicted following a not guilty plea. This was a well established principle under the common law and has since become part of sentencing guidelines, as outlined in the House of Commons extract below.
An Aside The press and liberal left frequently present the higher proportion of non-Whites who plead not guilty as evidence of non-Whites mistrusting the system. The presumption being that the system itself is at fault and must be changed. This is explored in more detail later in the article. Other times the impact of plea decisions on length of prison sentence is totally ignored and, as with Faiza Shaheen, the ‘White judicial system’ is blamed.
Conviction rate With the exception of young Asian men conviction rates for Whites tried in the Crown Court, are the same or higher than conviction rates for non-Whites. Adult Black, Asian and other ethnic males are about 10% less likely to be convicted at Crown Court than their White counterparts. Adult Asian females are about 20% less likely to be convicted at Crown Court than their White equivalent. This could be disproportionality that adversely affects Whites; White people are judged more harshly. But it is most often presented as a measure of bias against non-Whites, as in, the defendants who were found not guilty should never have been in the justice system in the first place.
Custodial sentences In general non-Whites were more likely to receive a custodial sentence at Crown Court.
More likely to be have custodial sentence than White counterparts:
- Black male adults *
- Mixed male adults *
- Black female adults*
- Asian male adults
- Black male youth
- Asian female adults
Less likely to be have custodial sentence than White counterparts:
- Asian male youth
- Mixed male youth
- Mixed female adults
* indicates a significant difference
Reflections
The report reveals that it is at the arrest stage that disproportionality occurs between races. The justice system itself added a ‘degree of disproportionality’ but both White and non-White groups experienced this.
Post arrest there are few consistent patterns with regard to which race, sex or age group is adversely affected by disproportionality. Some of the differences can be directly explained by the actions of individuals within that group, for example the reluctance among non-Whites to plead guilty.
Post arrest data provides no proof whatsoever that the criminal justice system is biased against non-Whites.
With regard to arrests, which is by far the main factor explaining the higher proportion of non-Whites is prison, is it down to bias against non-Whites or different behaviours of racial groups? Whether our society is prepared to openly admit it or not, racial difference in criminal and antisocial behaviour have already been confirmed. For Black people there is clear evidence of higher violent crime rates. For White people there is a clear message from society that we are uniquely ‘racist’, and measures need to put in place to curtail this. Given these differences why would we expect arrest figures to be identical between groups.
People of influence using terms such as ‘institutionally racism’ increase resentment and distrust of the system by non-Whites, acerbating the very problem these reports claim they are looking to address.
Building Trust – How our courts can improve the criminal court experience for Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic defendants (2017)
Our review is based on a Guardian article from March 2017 which discussed the report. We concentrate on plea decisions by non-Whites and the need for racial segregation in the justice system (our words for their thinking). Links will take you to the report itself and more information on the Centre for Justice Innovation.
Plea decisions
A major theme of the article is the idea that non-Whites receive longer prison sentences because they do not trust the justice system and are therefore reluctant to plead guilty. As a consequence they do not benefit from the well established system of lower sentences for guilty pleas. The message is, the justice system is at fault and must be changed.
Somewhat surprisingly the Centre for Justice Innovation study goes on to state that this perception of unfairness is likely to increase the chances of non-Whites repeat offending. “Perceptions of unfair treatment within the court process and lower levels of trust in the courts are likely to increase the chances that BAME offenders will go on to offend again.”
Racial segregation
The article quotes from the report, referring to the experience of an Asian Muslim who was sentenced to two years in prison:
“It was me against them” he says. “Coming from an Asian Muslim background, I didn’t see anyone with a common background. My distrust started with the police. I didn’t trust anyone. As for judges and magistrates, they were the last people I trusted – elderly, white English people – and that’s not what I see in society outside. They don’t understand what I’ve gone through or my culture. They don’t take into account anything you say, no common ground at all.”
The message is clear. Non-Whites cannot be expected to trust White people, and any non-White brought before a White judge has every right to feel alienated and distrustful. This is not addressing non-Whites distrust of the criminal justice system, it is feeding it. It is also pushing the idea that fairness for non-Whites can only be achieved if they are judged by their own race.
Reflections
Increasing trust in the criminal justice system requires being open and truthful about the system, conveying the message to non-Whites that, with the exception of arrests, the differences in the justice system between non-Whites and Whites are small and work both ways. Instead the opposite happens. We can only conclude that this report, and the rhetoric of many of our MPs and the MSM, is not intended to help non-Whites. Rather it is designed to portray non-Whites as victims and Whites as privileged, thus stirring up further animosity between races.
Click here to return to start.
The Lammy Review, An independent review into the treatment of, and outcomes for, Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic individuals in the Criminal Justice System (2017)
This report by David Lammy, MP for Tottenham was commissioned by David Cameron and Theresa May. It was in part informed by the Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic disproportionality in the Criminal Justice System in England and Wales (2016) report reviewed earlier in this article.
We concentrate on two areas within David Lammy’s report; plea decisions and the mental health of inmates.
Plea decisions
As with the previous reports, David Lammy refers to the greater likelihood of non-Whites pleading not guilty and the impact this has on sentencing. He also refers to the decision by non-White defendants to opt for trial in the Crown Court, even though these courts have the power to impose higher prison sentences than Magistrates Courts. These are both attributed to non-Whites lack of trust in the justice system.
Interestingly non-Whites are more likely to request legal advice in a police station than their White counter parts, but seemingly are then reluctant to follow the advice given.
If it’s correct that distrust of the criminal justice system affects non-Whites plea decisions, it is certainly not correct for all offences. Figure 3. from the report shows that some 80% of non-Whites plead not guilty to homicide related cases, as compared to just over 30% of Whites.
However in the case of drug offences marginally more non-Whites than Whites plead guilty at close to 80%.
The report goes on the look at ways to address this issue. One method considered is systems that would mean plea decisions would not need to be made at all, as ‘justice’ would be achieved without requiring offenders to admit guilt.
David Lammy’s conclusion is that until the criminal justice system can operate without plea decisions, treatment of non-Whites will remain punitive by comparison with Whites.
Mental Health
While 40% of White youth entering prison were identified as being at risk of suicide or self harm, under 20% of non-Whites were. Rather than consider this might be due to differences between races, and be concerned about the mental health of young White inmates, the accusation is that this ‘worrying’ difference means non-Whites’ needs may be going unidentified.
A review of suicided data from HM Prison Service would have shown David Lammy that Whites are proportionately more likely to commit suicide than either Blacks or Asians:
Reflections
The two areas of the report considered here again demonstrate how the justice system is identified as being ‘at fault’ rather than the non-White offenders decision making – and willingness to admit to a crime they committed. The justice system must be changed, Lammy says, to fit with the actions and decisions of non-White defendants, rather than the other way round.
The report show indifference to White inmates. While this report was focused on non-Whites to make no mention of the higher suicide rate among White prisoners is a unworthy omission.
Click here to return to start and our reflections from the three articles combined. We need to expose this manipulation and these half-truths at every opportunity.
PDF of Reports Reviewed in this Article
Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic disproportionality in the Criminal Justice System in England and Wales (2016)
The Lammy Review An independent review into the treatment of, and outcomes for, Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic individuals in the Criminal Justice System and Wales (September 2017)
Centre for Justice Innovation, Building Trust How our courts can improve the criminal court experience for Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic defendants (March 2017)
Building Trust: how our courts can improve the criminal court experience for Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic defendants Centre for Justice Innovation
Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System 2016
Although not referred to in this article this provides interesting data on the justice system and has been included for that reason.
A Ministry of Justice publication under Section 95 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991
Click here to return to start.
Published 4th January 2021