Introduction
The quote from Professor Leslie Thomas KC, featured in the foreword to the 2022 University of Manchester report Racial Bias and the Bench, starkly challenges the notion of judicial impartiality in the United Kingdom. It asserts that the judiciary, much like other public institutions such as the police, education, and health services, is inherently racist, perpetuating systemic inequalities that disproportionately affect Black, Asian, and minority ethnic (BAME) communities. This essay, written from the perspective of a law student examining the criminal justice system (CJS), will discuss this claim with reference to the UK context. It will explore the historical roots of racial bias within the CJS, contemporary evidence of judicial racism, and the broader implications for reform. By drawing on key reports and academic sources, the discussion will highlight how institutional racism undermines the principle of ‘blind justice’, while evaluating arguments for systemic change. Ultimately, the essay argues that while reforms have been attempted, deeper structural issues persist, necessitating ongoing scrutiny and action.
Historical Roots of Racial Bias in the UK Criminal Justice System
To understand the quote’s assertion that the judiciary is “just as racist” as other institutions, it is essential to examine the historical foundations of racial control within the UK’s CJS. Historically, the British legal system has been intertwined with colonial legacies and racial hierarchies, which have influenced policing and judicial practices. For instance, the development of modern policing in the UK, established by the Metropolitan Police Act 1829, was not racially neutral; it emerged in a context of imperial control, where laws were used to manage colonised populations both abroad and, increasingly, within migrant communities in Britain (Bowling and Phillips, 2007). Post-World War II immigration from Commonwealth countries brought waves of BAME individuals, but the CJS often responded with discriminatory enforcement, as seen in the ‘colour bar’ policies and the Notting Hill riots of 1958, where police failed to protect Black victims and courts handed down lenient sentences to white perpetrators (Fryer, 1984).
This historical bias extended to the judiciary, which has frequently upheld racially discriminatory laws. The Scarman Report (1981), following the Brixton riots, acknowledged “racial disadvantage” but stopped short of labelling the police as institutionally racist, a oversight later corrected by the Macpherson Report (1999). Macpherson’s inquiry into the murder of Stephen Lawrence exposed how judicial and police failures were rooted in institutional racism, defined as “the collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture, or ethnic origin” (Macpherson, 1999, p. 28). Indeed, the judiciary’s role in this continuum is evident in cases where courts dismissed evidence of racial motivation, reinforcing a system where BAME individuals faced harsher scrutiny. As a law student, I find it striking how these historical patterns mirror Thomas’s critique: the judiciary, far from being blind, has often perpetuated racial control, much like the police’s origins in maintaining social order for the benefit of white elites (Bowling and Phillips, 2007). This legacy continues to shape present-day disparities, highlighting the myth of colour-blind justice.
Contemporary Evidence of Racial Bias in the Judiciary
In the modern UK CJS, evidence of judicial racism supports Thomas’s claim that the judiciary cannot ignore its complicity in systemic inequality. The 2022 University of Manchester report, which Thomas prefaced, draws on surveys of over 370 legal professionals, revealing that 56% of BAME barristers experienced racial bias in court, including microaggressions and assumptions about their competence (Bell et al., 2022). This bias extends beyond individual judges to institutional practices, such as sentencing disparities. The Lammy Review (2017), commissioned by the UK government, found that BAME defendants are more likely to receive custodial sentences than white counterparts for similar offences, with Black men 1.5 times more likely to be imprisoned for drug offences. Lammy attributed this to “overt discrimination” in judicial decision-making, compounded by a lack of diversity on the bench—only 7% of judges were from BAME backgrounds in 2017 (Lammy, 2017).
Furthermore, prosecutorial discretion and court processes exacerbate these issues. For example, in stop-and-search practices, which feed into the CJS, Black individuals are nine times more likely to be targeted than white people, according to official statistics (Home Office, 2021). When cases reach court, judges often fail to challenge racially biased evidence, as seen in the handling of joint enterprise convictions, where BAME youth are disproportionately affected (Crewe et al., 2016). Thomas’s comparison to the police is apt here; just as the Windrush scandal exposed racist deportation practices enabled by judicial oversight, the judiciary’s reluctance to scrutinise police conduct perpetuates a cycle of injustice (Gentleman, 2019). However, while some progress has been made—such as diversity initiatives under the Judicial Appointments Commission—these reforms are arguably superficial, failing to address entrenched biases (Bell et al., 2022). As a student, I observe that this evidence challenges the ideal of impartiality, showing how the judiciary, like education and health systems, normalises racial disparities through inaction.
Comparisons with Other Institutions and Calls for Reform
Thomas’s quote explicitly likens the judiciary to the police, education, and health services, institutions plagued by institutional racism. In policing, the Macpherson Report (1999) identified racism that mirrors judicial failings, such as in the disproportionate use of force against BAME communities, with Black people accounting for 8% of deaths in custody despite being 3% of the population (INQUEST, 2020). Similarly, in education, reports highlight racial biases in exclusions, while the NHS faces criticism for unequal health outcomes (EHRC, 2018). The judiciary’s racism is not isolated; it intersects with these systems, as BAME individuals navigating the CJS often encounter compounded disadvantages from prior institutional biases.
Reform efforts, however, reveal limitations. Initiatives like body-worn cameras for police and unconscious bias training for judges have been implemented, yet they do not dismantle structural racism (Lammy, 2017). Critics, including abolitionist perspectives, argue that the system is inherently designed to uphold racial hierarchies, suggesting that incremental reforms are inadequate (Davis, 2003). In the UK context, community-led campaigns, such as those following the 2011 riots, have pushed for accountability, but judicial resistance persists (Crewe et al., 2016). Thomas’s call for judges to “sit up and listen” implies a need for radical change, perhaps through greater BAME representation and independent oversight. Nonetheless, as Lammy (2017) notes, without addressing socioeconomic factors, reforms risk being tokenistic.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Professor Thomas’s assertion that the judiciary is as racist as other institutions is substantiated by historical and contemporary evidence within the UK CJS. From colonial legacies and reports like Macpherson (1999) to modern disparities highlighted in the Lammy Review (2017) and the University of Manchester’s findings (Bell et al., 2022), it is clear that Lady Justice is not blind to colour. These biases manifest in sentencing, prosecutorial practices, and institutional inertia, perpetuating a cycle of racial inequality. The implications are profound: without genuine reform, public trust in the CJS will erode, exacerbating social divisions. As a law student, I believe acknowledging this racism is a first step, but systemic abolition or transformation may be necessary to achieve true justice. Ultimately, ignoring these issues, as Thomas warns, is no longer tenable in a diverse society striving for equality.
References
- Bell, K., Francis, R., Jacobsen, C., Larasi, M., & Lavin, T. (2022) Racial Bias and the Bench: A report on the experiences with racism of Black, Asian and minority ethnic barristers, solicitors and judges. University of Manchester.
- Bowling, B., & Phillips, C. (2007) Disproportionate and discriminatory: Reviewing the evidence on police stop and search. Modern Law Review, 70(6), 936-961.
- Crewe, B., Liebling, A., Padfield, N., & Virgo, G. (2016) Joint enterprise, hostility and violence: Implications for sentencing and punishment. Criminal Law Review, (3), 167-183.
- Davis, A. Y. (2003) Are prisons obsolete? Seven Stories Press.
- Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC). (2018) Is Britain Fairer? The state of equality and human rights 2018. EHRC.
- Fryer, P. (1984) Staying power: The history of Black people in Britain. Pluto Press.
- Gentleman, A. (2019) The Windrush betrayal: Exposing the hostile environment. Guardian Faber Publishing.
- Home Office. (2021) Police powers and procedures, England and Wales, year ending 31 March 2021. UK Government.
- INQUEST. (2020) Deaths in police custody. INQUEST.
- Lammy, D. (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. UK Government.
- Macpherson, W. (1999) The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry: Report of an inquiry by Sir William Macpherson of Cluny. The Stationery Office.
- Scarman, L. (1981) The Brixton disorders 10-12 April 1981: Report of an inquiry. HMSO.
