This blog from Dr Kitty Lymperopoulou Senior Research Fellow at the University of Plymouth and Administrative Data Research UK (ADR UK) Fellow, explores the evidence on ethnic disparities in the criminal justice system drawing on her research using the Data First datasets, a pioneering data linking programme led by the Ministry of Justice.
England and Wales have the highest rates of imprisonment in Western Europe, where people from ethnic minority backgrounds in prisons make up 27% of prisoners compared to 18% of the general population. The landmark Lammy Review and subsequent government reports have documented ethnic disparities across different stages of the criminal justice system. From the point of arrest through to prosecution, sentencing, and imprisonment, people from ethnic minority backgrounds are disproportionately represented in the criminal justice system. This signals potential inequities rooted in ethnicity. But to understand if ethnicity makes a difference on how people are treated in the justice system, we need to account for the influence of other factors such as offence type and seriousness.
Does ethnicity matter in how people are treated in the justice system?
Analysis of criminal courts linked datasets from the Ministry of Justice Data First programme shows that people from ethnic minority groups receive harsher sentences than white British people even after important legal factors affecting sentencing are taken into account. Among defendants sentenced in the Crown Court between 2017 and 2020 a custodial (prison) sentence was 41% more likely for Chinese defendants and 22% more likely for white and black African defendants than the white British defendants. Compared to people from the white British group, a custodial sentence was also between 16% and 21% more likely for Asian defendants and between 9% and 19% more likely for black defendants. Pakistani, Bangladeshi and black Caribbean defendants also received between 4% and 11% longer custodial sentences. Nevertheless, in most cases ethnic differences in sentence length narrow or disappear after we account for legal factors. This means that people from ethnic minority groups are treated more equally at later stages of the sentencing process. One possible explanation is the lower discretion of judges in passing decisions about sentence length. This is because sentence length decisions are primarily determined by sentencing guidelines and mandatory minimum sentences passed by Parliament.
The persistence of ethnic disparities in sentencing point to unequal, discriminatory and biased treatment of people from ethnic minorities. These disparities are unlikely the result of isolated decisions at the sentencing stage alone. Government statistics consistently show that people from ethnic minority groups, and especially black people, are disproportionately targeted by the police, being more than four times as likely to be stopped and searched, and 2.2 times as likely to be arrested than white individuals. These initial interactions cause a ripple effect of disadvantage throughout the criminal justice system.
Cumulative disadvantage
Ethnic disparities are evident from the point individuals enter the court system, and across sequential stages of the court process. Compared to the white British defendants, ethnic minority defendants are consistently more likely to plead not guilty because of mistrust in the justice system and so are more likely to face more punitive sentences. They are also more likely to be remanded when they appear in court which can make them appear more dangerous and blameworthy during sentencing. Indeed, the analysis shows that remand status exerts the greatest influence on the likelihood of imprisonment compared to other factors.
Further analyses of the criminal courts data showed that black African, black Caribbean and defendants from mixed white and black ethnic backgrounds appearing in the Crown Court faced higher odds of being remanded even after adjusting for other factors. Compared to the white British defendants, their chances of being remanded to custody prior to trial were between 25% and 59% higher. Defendants from ethnic minority groups were also between 38% and 71% more likely to plead not guilty compared to their white British counterparts. These adverse outcomes at earlier decisions in court proceedings can produce cumulative disadvantage by influencing how defendants are perceived and treated during sentencing.
This becomes evident when we look at combinations of remand, plea and sentencing outcomes. For example, the probability of a prison sentence after being remanded to custody and pleading not guilty for black African and white and black African defendants was double that of white British defendants. The probability of this combination of outcomes was 50% higher for Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi and white and black Caribbean defendants, and 75% higher for black Caribbean defendants, than for white British defendants. These figures suggest that people from ethnic minority groups are far more likely to experience cumulative disadvantage in the justice system. They also point to systemic, indirect ethnic biases in the justice system.
What can be done?
Addressing ethnic disparities requires greater judicial awareness of racial bias and action to enhance the fairness and consistency of decisions across stages of the justice system. Reforms like transparency and accountability in arrests, remand and sentencing decisions and provision of training and support for criminal justice officials won’t fix everything –but they’re a start. The research emphasises that addressing ethnic disparities requires a comprehensive approach that combines meaningful engagement and trust building with ethnic minority communities with broader systemic change.
Disclaimer
This work was undertaken in the Office for National Statistics Secure Research Service using Data First linked administrative data. The use of the data in this work does not imply the endorsement of the ONS or data owners (e.g. MoJ and HM Courts and Tribunals Service) in relation to the interpretation or analyses of the statistical data. This work uses research datasets which may not exactly reproduce National Statistics aggregates. National statistics follow consistent statistical conventions over time and cannot be compared to Data First linked datasets.