UK Senior Black Judge Sues Ministry of Justice Over Racism

PRESS RELEASE            

SENIOR BLACK JUDGE SUES THE MINISTRY OF JUSTICE, JUDICIAL CONDUCT INVESTIGATION OFFICE (JCIO) ALLEGING BREACHES OF THE EQUALITY ACT 2010 IN MISCONDUCT PROCEEDINGS

Judge Peter Herbert 

D. PETER HERBERT O.B.E., a practicing human rights barrister, and Chair of the Society of Black Lawyers, who sits as a Recorder, part time Immigration Judge and Employment Judge has today launched an action in the Central London Employment Tribunal after conciliation efforts with the Ministry of Justice (MOJ), failed to produce any response from the Respondents. 

The MOJ currently face 5 cases alleging race discrimination and victimisation.

The complaint against Judge Herbert arose after a short speech he gave at a meeting protesting the judicial decision to bar the former Mayor of Tower Hamlets, Lutfur Rahman from holding public office for a period of five years. Herbert was introduced as a human rights barrister but inadvertently referred to his being a Judge in a humorous aside in the context of speeches criticising the Judiciary as being all “white, male and middle class”. 

Herbert mentioned racism by his colleagues had in the past been a problem and questioned in general terms the judgment of the Electoral College Judge decision as being discriminatory on racial grounds without naming the Judge.

The matter was identified by the JCIO when it appeared on a You Tube video and was subsequently subject to a complaint by two individuals purporting to be independent members of the public.

Judge Herbert, represented by solicitors, Mishcon de Reya, alleges that the decision by Justice Undersell to refer this matter for misconduct, and his subsequent decision as the Nominated Judge to recommend a formal warning against Judge Herbert is discriminatory on racial grounds, amounted to victimisation, and was fundamentally flawed as it failed to consider the protection offered by s27 of the Equality Act 2010 which prevents victimisation for those that raise racial discrimination under the EqA. Neither the JCIO, not the Nominated Judge appeared to consider or even mention the provisions of the EqA, not the right to freedom of speech under Article 9 read together with Article 14 of the ECHR.

Judge Herbert alleges that there was an attempt to suspend him from all his judicial sittings on November 6^th, for no apparent reason, as this matter was first brought to his attention on 12^th July. The President of the South Eastern Circuit, Lord Justice Sweeney signed the letter requesting he voluntarily suspend himself after consultation with Bran Doyle, the President of the Employment Tribunal and Michel Clements, the President of the Immigration Tribunal. This request to suspend is believed to have originated from a report made by Ms Joanna Holmes, a civil servant at the JCIO.

Judge Herbert was informed of this in person at a Criminal Judges Judicial training course by Sweeney, who stated he was only the “messenger’ and that he would be “turned away” if he attempted to sit at Harrow Crown Court on Monday 8^th November. After written representations Sweeney lifted this suspension and the matter allowed to proceed on an undertaking the Judge Herbert would not make any “controversial comments”. 

It is believed that the suspension was only lifted after Judge Herbert pointed out that three white male Judges at the Immigration Tribunal had been allowed to continue in office despite a far more serious allegation of racism and on-going victimisation and bullying against a colleague of African descent. Despite the case being lodged in the ET the victimisation has continued against this Judge.

In a recommendation to the Lord Chief Justice and Lord Chancellor, the Nominated Judge acknowledged Judge Herbert’s 20 years of holding part time Judicial Office and his contribution to equality and diversity recognised by the award of the O.B.E. in January 2010. 

He also made a distinction with the absence of any misconduct if the criticism had been made in a “forensic setting”. Judge Herbert’s alleges this is a false distinction and was made to protect the many white Judges who do criticise the decisions of others at a range of legal conferences. The rules them selves make no such distinction.

The Lord Chief Justice, and Lord Chancellor, has the power to suspend, reprimand or even disbar Judge Herbert from judicial Office. Judge Herbert is of the view that neither will wish loose face by admitting a fundamental error by the JCIO or a failure by a senior Judge to apply the Equality Act 2010.

Judge Herbert, who is a member of the Commonwealth Magistrates and Judges Association, the Pan African Lawyers Forum and the National Bar Association (USA) has the full support of a range of legal and community organisations in the UK including the Society of Black Lawyers (SBL), the National Black Police Association, the Association of Muslim Lawyers, the Association of Black Probation Officers and variety of community organisations across the UK.

 D Peter Herbert O.B.E., commented,

“It is a sad day for me personally and for the Black and minority community generally when we are treated with such a blatant disregard for the law in a manner that seeks to control our right to freedom of speech. This is reminiscent of the worst colonial excesses that our forefathers were subject to in the days of empire. The suggestion that we are equal under the law remains an illusion when our colour determines our professional lives. This is exactly the same way my people are treated on the streets and in the Courts themselves. I will fight this action for all those that follow me.”

David Neita, spokesperson for the Society of Black Lawyers commented,

“We are all told that we are all equal under the law. It now seems that Judges in England and Wales are above the law, at least if they are white, male and middle class”.

Courtney Griffiths Q.C. commented,

“Given the under representation of BME Judges in the Crown Court @ only 7% (60 out of 840 Recorders), the targeting of Peter Herbert appears to be founded in a rather colonial and myopic view of who is entitled to speak out on race issues. Cases such as this are a clear message to BME lawyers not to take judicial office and to remain invisible to our communities.

Imran Khan solicitor for Baroness Doreen Lawrence commented

“Peter has been known as one of the leading advocates for social justice over the years and this attempt to silence him harks back to the days before the murder of Stephen Lawrence where race was a four letter word that simply could not be uttered by anyone in authority”.

Baroness Doreen Lawrence,

“The targeting and victimisation of Peter Herbert is a clear demonstration that no matter what your achievements or expertise your experience is no better than a young black man on the street who is seen as a threat to the justice system simply on account of the colour of their skin.”

Michael Mansfield Q.C

‘In a world where free speech is being eroded from all quarters, the freedom to identify and comment upon perceived racism is vital. Discrimination is not always writ large, it is often elusive and masked. Without the facility for robust critique we will be a poorer and less fair society '

Milton Grimes Esq, based in Los Angeles, the lawyer for the late Rodney King commented,

“Having been to the UK on several occasions to speak out against racism in the criminal justice system it seems that the British establishment cannot tolerate or accept the presence of black Judges, let alone acknowledge their contribution to the system of justice”.

Lee Jasper, Chair of the London Race and Criminal Justice Consortium, commented,

Institutional racism in all its repugnant and toxic glory, continues to effect British black people, whether as suspects, defendants, defence solicitors, prosecutors or judges. 

The Prime Minister, David Cameron agrees there is a problem, citing disproportionality in sentencing, he recently announced a Government review into the issue of racism and criminal justice administration.

Both he and the Home Secretary Theresa May have now highlighted the scandal of racism in policing and the judicial process. This action against Peter is an attempt to silence and intimidate a UK black judges from highlighting racism, pure and simple. 

Peter is a leading community activist who has an exemplary record of public service and would not face this action if he was white, male and middle class. This highlights the continued racial bias that exists in the British Judicial system which gives significantly longer sentences to African, Caribbean men and women, denies them bail has been allowed to exist for over 25 years since statistics were first published pursuant to s95 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991.

Benjamin Crump, the President of the National Bar Association (USA), commented,

“The NBA is appalled at this attempt to discipline the leader of our sister organisation in the UK. We have worked with Peter since we visited the UK in 1992 and stand shoulder to shoulder with him in fighting this disgraceful attempt to silence him in a manner not applied to his white colleagues. We will take this matter up with the President of the American Bar Association, Ms Paulette Brown, the first African American President of the ABA.”

If the matter goes for trial and any misconduct is upheld against Judge Herbert it will almost certainly result in the cross examination of Underhill J, the Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor on issues of race discrimination.

Ironically, that is likely to provide all three individuals with more training then either has ever had to experience in their careers to date.

The case is due to be heard later in 2016 and estimated to take some 5 days.

For further comment please contact:

Lee Jasper Campaign Co-ordinator and Press Spokesperson: 

Tel 07984 181 797; email: lee-jasper@live.com;

It’s all about perspective - Almost British?



Wandsworth Prison

Buried amidst the rubble in the aftermath of London’s troubled week is news about the spot inspection at Wandsworth prison being “demeaning” and “unsafe”. The BBC report outlines a number of alarming failings: the unacceptably high levels of self-harm and self-inflicted deaths; prisoners being locked in their cells from anything between 16.5 hours to 22 hours per day; the poor provision for Foreign Nationals; and the conclusion that Black and Minority Ethnic prisoners were disadvantaged in significant areas of the prison. In the government’s bid to mete out swift justice, courts across London, Birmingham and Manchester have pulled all-nighters to process 1,700 defendants (so far) for burglary, violent disorder and arson. As tough sentences are passed in response to David Cameron’s pledge to track down, charge and punish offenders, I wonder where he will send them all afterwards.

Only two years ago, the Independent reported that two-thirds of the prisons in England and Wales were overcrowded, with some jails holding hundreds more offenders than they were built for. Since then various initiatives have been considered to reduce overcrowding including the building of Titan prisons and early release programmes. The Government bowed to public pressure and abandoned their plans for Titan prisons but went ahead with early release schemes at a controversial cost of up to £3 million within the first year of the scheme. This initiative was not without it’s problems as it has been reported that some of those released have committed more crime and are now back in jail and around 100 ex-offenders were on the run having been recalled to prison.

All this ‘activity’ has still left us with the question: Once the midnight-oil, mass processing of offenders is done, what does the government propose to do with them? Now don’t get me wrong, I am not saying that acts of criminality should go unpunished. I am merely suggesting that once the dust has settled the cleanup can’t end with brooms and bin bags.
In response to the Wandsworth Prison Inspection Report, Frances Crook, Chief Executive from the Howard League for Penal Reform said: "Such abuse [of prisoners] hampers safe return to the community and puts victims at risk.”

‘Well boo hoo’ I hear the unsympathetic sarcastically say, ‘prison is supposed to be hard and demeaning’. Indeed it was shocking to see the fires and the looting in the week that England went insane. If you were on the receiving end of the violence I have no doubt that your anger is justified. Whilst not diminishing anyone’s pain and loss, I am looking further down the line. What do we really want? The guilty punished? Yes absolutely! But what then? They won’t stay behind bars forever – they will be coming out. Will they come out worse than they went in and if they do, who pays the price for that?

I have recently come across a book that raises the kind of issues identified in the Wandsworth Inspection Report called ‘Almost British’ by Olivea M Ebanks. Ms Ebanks worked as a senior manager in the Prison Service (an agency of the Ministry of Justice) and experienced racism whilst working at the Prison Service College training Governors and managers that she took them to court for direct racial discrimination, harassment and victimisation. In 2008 she bravely represented herself in a 15 day hearing and won rulings against the Prison Service and some of the named perpetrators. Ms Ebanks went on to write her story to encourage others to stand up to unfair treatment, but also to raise the alarm that racism and unacceptably high levels of use of force along with unfair treatment of Black and Minority prisoners can only end in tragedy. This astonishing prediction is eerily confirmed in the Wandsworth Inspection Report months later. Nick Hardwick Chief Inspector of Prison summarises the main failings:

“There had been 11 deaths in custody between January 2010 and the time of this inspection [28 February – 4 March 2011]... four of these had apparently been self-inflicted...We observed frequently indifferent and sometimes abusive staff interactions with prisoners... Victims of bullying behaviour were not adequately protected... The level of use of force remained high and our examination of records of incidents showed that de-escalation was not always used...neither we nor the prison could be assured that all use of force was proportionate and necessary....The treatment and conditions of simply too many prisoners at Wandsworth was demeaning, unsafe and fell below what could be classed as decent. I did not detect sufficient willingness in the prison to acknowledge and address these concerns.”

The Prison Service or as they are now known the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) immediately issued the standard civil service rhetoric by Michael Spurr the Chief Executive saying "a robust action plan is in place to address the recommendations in the report and managers and staff at the prison are in no doubt that they must improve performance."

Quite right too, but why did they not respond to Ms Ebanks concerns raised nearly a year ago. Surprisingly they have responded to Ms Ebanks by silencing her and telling her not to promote her published book even though (according to her husband) she made her new managers at the Judicial College aware of her plans to publish. Their initial response of congratulations very quickly turned to threats of discipline, dismissal for gross misconduct and led to a formal investigation into her conduct. Another civil service standard response to her book is that Ms Ebanks’ account and concerns are “unbalanced and misleading”, yet when I consider the content of her book I find that her worries about poor treatment of prisoners is uncannily close to the findings of this report. The MoJ seems to have made a very odd and disproportionate response to a member of staff’s genuine concerns which are based on her own experience of discrimination and unfair treatment as upheld by law.

This brings me back to my original questions, ‘what kind of environments are we sending those convicted of crime this last week into; will they come back having paid the debt due to society as better, well-adjusted and rehabilitated individuals or will their stay end in tragedy as predicted by Ms Ebanks and now shown as a real outcome by the Wandsworth Inspection Report. With the potential of overcrowding once again becoming an issue because of an upsurge in convictions, overstretched and (in the case of Wandsworth) indifferent staff, use of force on prisoners as a first response, and Foreign Nationals being held up to 3 years beyond their sentence, the next 18 months will be very telling.

Ms Ebanks is still an employee of the Ministry of Justice and now has to go back to court on 8th December 2011 to fight to have the harsh restrictions imposed, taken off her book. I wonder just how “robust” the action plan that Michael Spurr is referring to is going to be? Particularly, in light of the fact that NOMS is prepared to spend public money to defend a case that articulated problems from a member of staff’s perspective with regard to prisoner treatment and whose perspective is now echoed as evidence in an official report. It doesn’t seem right to me to relentlessly pursue a member of staff who drew from her own experience and the statistics that are in the public domain to raise concerns about the welfare of others, for those concerns to be met with institutional force, belittlement and attempts at gagging. But then that’s only my perspective.

Lee Jasper

(First publised at OBV www.obv.org.uk)

Connected article:  The Ministry of Justice or dystopian fiction?   http://leejasper.blogspot.com/2011/08/ministry-of-justice-or-dystopian.html

The Ministry of Justice or dystopian fiction?



Olivea Ebanks (picture by BBC)

When I think about justice or better still ‘the quality of being just’ a number of obvious things come to mind: balance, proportionality, fairness, impartiality. Yet try as I might when I consider the case of Olivea Ebanks and the restrictions placed on her book ‘Almost British,’ I find it impossible to apply these terms. By way of background ‘Almost British’ is about the events that led up to Ms Ebanks representing herself in court for 15 days alleging direct racial discrimination, harassment on racial grounds and victimisation. She won rulings across each area of discrimination against the prison service and named perpetrators and was awarded compensation for their breaches of discrimination law. The book revolves around incidents as recorded in the witness statement Ms Ebanks presented to court, the evidence presented by the prison service, the judgement and its aftermath. ‘Almost British’ covers the experiences that contributed to Ms Ebanks’ feelings of harassment and victimisation. The book is quite detailed and contains excerpts from emails presented to court by both sides and her personal diary. Additionally her book looks at her heritage as a black woman with Caribbean and African roots. The ideology behind slavery is touched upon and considerations about the legacy of slavery after abolition. There are reflections and musings about her childhood, education, husband, parents and siblings, and her Christian faith. 

Ms Ebanks additionally refers to the racist murders of Stephen Lawrence and Zahid Mubarek, and records personal and community reactions to those tragic deaths. She goes on to capture some of the experiences of her friends and the racism and differential treatment they’ve encountered. In summary, ‘Almost British’ is Ms Ebanks’ personal account of racism in Britain and she shares the experiences of the racism that she was exposed to whilst working for the prison service as one of the platforms for discussion.

It is against this backdrop of complex emotions, facts and historical record that the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has imposed restrictions claiming that “Ms Ebanks' book is unbalanced and misleading” (the Voice online19 July written by Merrisa Richards). The MoJ argument goes on to proffer that “Ms Ebanks' claims were misconceived and the tribunal upheld only four of her thirty-seven complaints. All four of those matters were found to be isolated acts by individuals in which no malice was intended.”

Let’s take these points in turn starting with the question of ‘balance’. Firstly, to put things into perspective we should look closely at who is talking about balance. In August 2000 Martin Narey was the Director General for the prison service and he described the organisation as “institutionally racist” (The Independent, Ian Burrell 21 Aug).  By 2005 with regard to the Zahid Mubarek racist murder he described Feltham prison as “institutionally racist” (The Telegraph, Sally Pook 8 Feb). In 2010 the Prison Reform Trust reported that “for many [BME prisoners], racism occurs frequently in prison. Whether among prisoners, or between prisoners and staff; over a third said that racist incidents happen often or everyday” (PRT, ‘A Fair Response’ 2010). It is a well documented fact that the prison service as an agency of MoJ is predominately white and male; the MoJ Equality Schemes Annual Review 2009–2010 reported that only 4.64% BAME people were in senior civil service positions. Whilst the prison service as an agency of MoJ has suggested that there is improvement in the world of race relations, they have not yet been able to definitively say that they are no longer institutionally racist. What we have then, with regard to the question of ‘balance’ is an organisation that is still institutionally racist, predominately white and male determined to put themselves forward as the authority on whether or not a black female perspective and experience of racism is balanced.

I am turning my attention now to the statement that Ms Ebanks claims were “misconceived” because only 4 of her 37 complaints were upheld. It is a shame that the MoJ’s best defence seems only to be to play the numbers game, but having spoken to her husband Mr Rudy Ebanks, he assures me that his wife simply did as instructed. Apparently she was attempting to show an overall picture of harassment over a period of 2 years. In order to do this she was advised to detail and link every occurrence she felt would demonstrate an ongoing campaign of abuse. Had she been advised that she should instead focus on the aspects on which she felt were the strongest elements of her case to secure a judgment of discrimination on racial grounds, that’s what she would have done. Mr Ebanks is especially keen for us to remember that his wife is not a lawyer and that she had never before presented evidence to court nor does she have the experience of collating evidence in a way to withstand the scrutiny of interrogation and law. He is very angry that MoJ is using the issue of numbers to diminish the fact that they were found to be racist and instead are making his wife out to be reactionary and prone to complain about everything.

I move on to the MoJ’s apparent capacity to judge the intents of a person’s heart with the view that no malice was intended. My questions are, if no malice was intended why didn’t the discrimination stop after one incident, and why did the 4 rulings (covering 5 acts of discrimination) span 2 years, despite Ms Ebanks raising internal grievances asking for the differential treatment to stop after the first incident? These are good questions, but it seems no one from the MoJ is available to comment.

I come back to my original considerations about ‘justice’ and proportionality. Ms Ebanks went to a public hearing and disclosed what she felt to be wrongdoing. She named individuals as perpetrators of the discrimination law. The Tribunal made some findings in her favour meaning that HMPS (as it was then known) and 3 individuals were judged to have failed in their obligations to uphold the law whilst executing their public duty. Ms Ebanks has since gone on to exercise her right to tell her story and is being refused permission to publish. This is where it all gets a little confusing. How can the MoJ refuse permission to publish something that is already published? I note that the article in the Voice is generating much interest as people are still adding their comments. The responses are overwhelmingly positive and seem to be generated by people who have read the book. When I spoke to Mr Ebanks he was adamant that the Judicial College where his wife works gave her legitimate expectation to publish. He said “Liv went to see her managers who are judges and lawyers before the book was published. They congratulated her and told her to let the press office know what she was doing. A circuit judge, and two senior civil servants were told about the local publicity she had planned and they were fine about everything. In fact Liv was so motivated by their positive responses that she sent the manuscript to the publishers the very next day. We were both on a high after her managers told her how impressed they were with her. Then two weeks later they called her when we were on holiday and said that she hadn’t got permission to publish, that she was to stop everything or face disciplinary action. It was a complete about turn and by then it was too late because the book was out.” Mr Ebanks claims that the Judicial College (which incidentally is also an agency of MoJ) has since gone on to discipline his wife for gross misconduct, told her not to reprint, distribute or promote her book and she is under treat of dismissal for any further misconduct. “They even wrote to her in May [this year], telling her to tell me to cease my activities on FaceBook regarding her story,” Mr Ebanks continued, “--not satisfied with harassing my wife, they’re now bullying her to bully me! Who do they think they are?”

Having read this particular letter it does feel like something out of George Orwell’s novel 1984 which describes a society ruled by an oligarchical dictatorship. Orwell’s book talks about the ‘Ministry of Truth’ rewriting history in order to show themselves as always correct. The MoJ letter that has so infuriated Mr Ebanks claims that his actions if allowed to continue effectively bypass the prohibition that applies to Ms Ebanks. When I read this I was indeed transported to a place where totalitarianism is the goal and controlling and subjugating people the means to achieving it.

I have tried yet I cannot see the behaviour of the MoJ as impartial or proportionate. I cannot see how the MoJ having had the opportunity to tell Ms Ebanks not to publish, instead chose to praise her for her efforts, can then turn around and make Ms Ebanks out to be some sort of reckless militant, flying in the face of her employee obligations. If Mr Ebanks is to be believed and as the person closest to Ms Ebanks I have no reason to doubt his sincerity, all is not as MoJ would have us believe.

The more I look into this – the more questions I have. Why is MoJ wasting time and money in these austere times, to stop a book that is already published and clearly being read by the nation? I am in no doubt that had Ms Ebanks actually broken the law or any civil service protocols they would have had grounds to dismiss her, so why haven’t they? Why have they instead chosen to discipline her for something they initially had no problems with and then proceeded to gag her without recalling the book? It seems that proportionality has given way to clumsiness and heavy-handedness; perhaps something more sinister is afoot.

Having got hold of my copy of ‘Almost British’ very early on I find that Ms Ebanks has perhaps touched a few nerves and made some connections and disclosures that perhaps the MoJ would rather we remained ignorant of. Whilst she has not shared anything material to her key point that is not readily available from multiple sources, what she has done is conveniently put such information in one place.

Firstly and most importantly Ms Ebanks’ win at Tribunal successfully widens the debate about racism only emanating from prison officers towards prisoners, to include racism in the senior management grades of the prison service. This is historically and politically significant. Up until now racism has been relegated to the officer ranks and between prisoners themselves but now we have proof that the leadership of the prison service have had allegations of racism about them upheld.

Another point raised by Ms Ebanks’ book is she quite rightly drives home the fact that racism does not respect boundaries; one cannot simply suggest it is in one part of an organisation and not in another – racist officers after all (however few and far between) have opportunity to become managers. The book juxtaposes the rhetoric of MoJ officials in their steps to eliminate racism with the actual increases in disproportionate outcomes for black prisoners. In so doing we get an uncompromising and unadulterated glimpse of prisoner treatment that is both worrying and disappointing.

One of the most illuminating aspects of Ms Ebanks’ book is that she gives covert racism a face. We get to see its many dimensions and nuances. We get to see how MoJ policies presumably drafted to help the victim are used to frustrate her efforts at securing a fair and equitable outcome. We get to see how an institution can relentlessly bear down on a single unrepresented person having offered no more than a toothless staff care-and-welfare resource as a way of discharging their duty of care to her.

MoJ says (the Voice online) "We take all allegations of harassment or discrimination very seriously...” yet they conveniently say nothing about what they do with actual real-life judgments proving harassment, victimisation and discrimination as made against them in the Tribunal Reserved judgment dated 14 April 2008. It seems even now in 2011 they are loath to accept that the situation has moved beyond ‘allegations’ to legally binding authoritative judgment.

I wonder if MoJ would be less prickly if ‘Almost British’ could be dismissed as a rambling stream of consciousness and the ravings of a mad black woman. If the book could be dispensed with so easily it would certainly be less of a threat. Fortunately for us it is none of those things. It is intelligently written and quotes MoJ’s facts and statistics back at them whilst asking for explanations for inaction and squarely concludes that the progress made is nothing to boast about. Furthermore, Ms Ebanks’ book is endorsed by Doreen Lawrence OBE, mother of the murdered teenager Stephen Lawrence. Of the book Ms Lawrence says, “I found Olivea’s story disturbing. I found it difficult to believe that things have not moved on enough to enable black employees to be respected and valued...” No one has yet been convicted of the racist murder of Stephen Lawrence. Eighteen years of campaigning have finally yielded the result that two men are to stand trial in November this year. What is especially poignant is that in the midst of this long and torturous journey, Doreen Lawrence took the time to read ‘Almost British’ and lend her support confirming that this is not a book to be ignored.

It took a lot of courage to do what Ms Ebanks did. She risked her reputation, her employment in a senior position, and then at further peril went on to share her highs and lows to encourage others. And after such forfeit, the Ministry of Justice still thinks all that really happened was Ms Ebanks mostly made allegations that were not substantiated at Tribunal. Because, in her book she is of the view that she can still claim victory the MoJ state her views are “unbalanced and misleading”. What is particularly interesting is that the managers and colleagues who were found guilty of racial discrimination in 2008 were never formally sanctioned yet today it appears that Ms Ebanks has a final written warning for gross misconduct on her otherwise untarnished work record because she thought she had freedom of speech even as a civil servant. Where is the justice in that?

‘Almost British’ is unique and difficult to classify as an autobiography or memoir. It does not sit easily in any genre since it is not a victim piece, it is not purely her opinion; it is evidential and academically structured. Moreover unlike Trevor Phillips’ assertions in February 2009 (chair of Equalities and Human Rights Commission), that “institutional racism as a phrase is a blunt instrument and unhelpful” Ms Ebanks’ story at the very least poses the question that institutional racism has not dissipated; it has simply morphed into something more sophisticated.  This is a timely piece, written with urgency at its core to avert another death in custody.  Its topical nature is one that is generating public interest and the parallels drawn in it should be used to stoke the fires of institutional reform. Everybody wins when equal treatment is more than well-meaning public statements.

In the words of William Wells Brown, a prominent African-American abolitionist, lecturer, novelist, playwright, and historian, born into slavery, “All I demand for the black man is, that the white people shall take their heels off his neck, and let him have a chance to rise by his own efforts.” The MoJ needs to take its foot of Ms Ebanks’ neck. She has suffered enough and deserves to be heard. They have had their say, now it’s time for Ms Ebanks to have hers.

Lee Jasper