New review recommends ‘race-blind’ trials
Criminals could face “race-blind” prosecutions and have their identities concealed to ensure that they are not discriminated against, under plans set out by a landmark review. Under the proposals, any information that could identify an individual would be redacted from case files.
CRIMINALS could face “race-blind” prosecutions and have their identities concealed to ensure that they are not discriminated against, under plans set out by a landmark review.
Under the proposals, any information which could identify an individual, including their name, would be redacted from case files to allow the Crown Prosecution Service to make “race-blind” decisions. It is hoped such a move would help to ensure the criminal justice system treats all races and ethnicities the same, amid concerns that some groups have higher prosecution rates for certain serious offences than others.
Meanwhile, ministers have also been urged to consider introducing a “deferred prosecution” system to allow offenders to seek help to get them back on the straight and narrow instead of entering a plea and going through the courts.
The measures are set out in the Lammy Review, chaired by David Lammy, the Labour MP, which examines the way in which the justice system treats individuals from black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds.
The publication of the review comes just over a year after Theresa May launched an audit of public services with the aim of revealing the different ways in which people from different backgrounds are treated.
David Lidington, the Justice Secretary, said the Government would “look very carefully” at the review’s recommendations “before responding fully”, with the Prime Minister’s audit to be published next month.
The CPS has previously identified “significant differences in the prosecution and conviction rates for rape and domestic abuse” between different groups, with black defendants and Chinese defendants found to have higher prosecution rates for those offences. The CPS concluded that indicated it may be too reluctant to prosecute white defendants for rape or too quick to prosecute other groups. The Lammy Review suggests that, where practical, redacting information such as a person’s name and ethnicity could remedy the situation. It states: “The CPS and the public could then be confident that any disparities in charging decisions were not being driven by bias, either conscious or unconscious.”
Lord Falconer, the Labour peer, told The Daily Telegraph that the measure was worth exploring, but added: “It would be quite difficult in some cases to completely redact all details about eth- nicities if that could be inferred from other elements of the case. If, for example, the offence was smuggling drugs from a particular country there could be an implication that the offender was from that country.”
A CPS spokesman said: “The CPS fully supports race-blind decision making, and we are grateful that the report recognises our efforts to ensure fairness in all of our decisions … However, we will look at the practical implications of the recommendation and then decide how best to improve our practice on this issue.”
The Lammy Review has good intentions but lacks crucial detail. It was commissioned to examine how the justice system treats ethnic minorities, and concludes that their outcomes can be far harsher than those for whites accused of the same crimes. One solution explored by the Review is race-blind prosecution: the police would redact any information that indicates the race of a suspect before handing their file over to the Crown Prosecution Service.
That proposal might be undone by its complications: it would be hard, for instance, to disguise someone’s race if they smuggled drugs from a particular country. But it is the proposal to introduce “deferred prosecutions” that raises the most questions. It is suggested that those who pose a low risk to the public should have their charges deferred while they go through a programme of interventions such as drug and alcohol treatment. This could, in theory, break the depressing cycle of reoffending: juvenile offenders have a proven reoffending rate of 37.8 per cent.
But how would the risk posed by anyone with a deferred prosecution be judged? Who decides whether they go to court or to rehab? Fundamental principles could be at stake: the police should not be able to restrict someone’s liberty without a prosecution and many victims would be appalled to discover that someone who has burgled their house and taken their most personal possessions has escaped full justice. The concept of a second chance is a noble one and the Review is to be applauded for its imagination, but the Government must proceed with caution and on the principle that our police and courts exist primarily to uphold law and order.