Let's get it right: race and justice 2000 - Nacro

Let’s get it right‘There was no evidence that black or Asianoffenders were more or less likely than whites toreceive a custodial sentence when other factorswere taken into account.’This research – that seems to contradict other findings –underlines the need for everyone – prosecutors, lawyers,sentencers, defendants and of course the public – to bebetter informed about race and sentencing. Monitoring ofsentencing decisions is a starting point to answering thesequestions and reassuring all concerned that the courtprocess is above reproach.Civil proceedingsIn two key areas, for the purpose of this report, there isincreasing overlap between the civil and the criminaljustice systems.The Human Rights Act 1998 – and particularly Article 14which prohibits discrimination – may lead to increasedlitigation from minority claimants and an increasednumber of litigants in person. The 1998 Crime andDisorder Act includes provisions which blur theboundaries between criminal and civil: for example, antisocialbehaviour orders, parenting orders, and local childcurfews, which may start as civil proceedings; butbreaches of the orders will lead those involved to thecriminal courts. It is clearly important that there is nodiscrimination at the civil stage.Those making decisions about anti-social behaviour, orappropriate parenting, will need to be aware of culturaldifferences and trained to avoid discrimination in usingtheir discretion. Monitoring the use of these new orderswill help to detect whether they are beginning to be useddisproportionately against any particular group.Immigration and asylumNew immigration and asylum procedures will come intoforce with the Immigration and Asylum Bill 1998.Immigration officers will continue to make initialdecisions about asylum; administrative detention forunlimited periods will continue (although bail hearingswill be heard by magistrates); many detainees will be heldin prisons although not charged with any offence (seechapter 7); and immigration officers will have extendedpowers of arrest and search.Immigration Appeal Tribunals will become courts ofrecord and will include only legally qualified members;previously there was an opportunity for lay involvementwhich helped to produce more diverse tribunal panels.In his evidence to the Special Standing Committee of theHouse of Commons on the Immigration and Asylum Bill,Anver Jeevanjee, a lay member of immigration and othertribunals, commented on this aspect of the Bill:‘I believe that the injection and activeparticipation of leading members of the blackcommunity at the Immigration Appeal Tribunalwent some way in providing confidence with thefairness of the review process over immigrationdecisions. Moreover these black members werealso able to bring in their greater knowledge of thecustoms, culture and local sensitivity to the entiredecision-making process … the decision to abolishlay membership will instantly wipe out allexperienced black participation from this reviewprocess. Future decisions will be taken by a verynarrow band of white middle-class male lawyers,focused on purely legalistic terms.‘It is my humble view that it would be an entirelyretrograde step for the next millennium,particularly in the light of the Lawrence inquiryand proposals to build bridges across the racialdivides in our society and efforts at allowing moreblack participation in the decision-making areas ofBritish life.’A high proportion of those affected are from African andAsian countries. There is a widespread perception inminority communities that the immigration systemdiscriminates against racial minorities. It is essential thatthe new procedures are implemented fairly, with ethnicmonitoring of their use, accountability and openness, andtraining for all those involved, from immigration staff atentry points, to magistrates and tribunal members andthose running detention centres.38