Institutional racism and British judicial system: rotten to the core.

London riots (photo: photoplan.co.uk)

The London riots have attracted exceptional media and political coverage, but as the rebuilding work gets underway and the media coverage dies down the whiff of political interference in the dispensation of justice and the rancid stench of judicial racism begins to fill the air.

I have witnessed this first hand having spent three days at inner London Crown Court observing case after case being tried in the immediate aftermath of the riots. What I saw shocked me to the core: it reminded me of the chaotic ad hoc justice of the Wild West. Black offenders rights were dismissed, bail applications routinely refused for first time offenders and disproportionate sentences handed out down by an almost all white judiciary. It was carnage.

The Prime Minister David Cameron in part motivated this unnatural judicial zeal. His message of the need for swift justice resonated across the courts in Britain.  The judiciary spent the summer doling out harsh sentences leaving us again deeply troubled about the question of fairness and who we can trust to be equitable.

Against a backdrop of regularly reported disproportionate outcomes for black people in the criminal justice system, we are quickly losing faith in a system that is already harder on us than it is on anyone else.

Is this hysterical and discriminatory justice a product of both institutional racism and overbearing political pressure? How can the judiciary claim to uphold the principles of fairness and justice for all citizens regardless of colour or faith in the light of the overwhelming evidence that points to racist sentencing practices in some of our courts? Is the judiciary truly independent in terms of decision making and sentence passing?

This is not a rhetorical question especially when you consider the Guardian has recently reported that a recent report from the Ministry of Justice study shows that offenders from ethnic minorities are more likely than their white counterparts to be sentenced to prison for certain categories of crimes, according to an analysis of more than one million court records. You can read more here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/nov/25/ethnic-variations-jail-sentences-study

The Guardian goes on to report that “the difference in racial sentencing between courts was also considerable. Haringey magistrates court, which dealt with many of the Tottenham riot cases, sentenced – before the summer disturbances – 11 of the 54 black defendants it dealt with for public disorder or weapons offences to prison, as compared to 5 of 73 white defendants. While West London magistrates court sentenced 17 of 107 black defendants to jail, versus 21 of 237 who were white – meaning at that court black defendants were 79% more likely to be jailed.”

The fact is that either as victims of crime or as offenders, black people in Britain are treated as third class citizens. Fundamental to any notion of citizenship is the principle of equality and that remains elusive to most black people in Britain. Whether it is as victims of crimes or those who have suffered deaths in custody or as offenders, we are treated differently and I might add without fear of any real consequences, by a police service and judiciary that operates beyond and above the law.

After the recent summer riots PM David Cameron virtually instructed the judiciary to hand out exemplary sentences to rioters. Contrast this to the soft touch and sympathetic hearing given to MPs and Lords caught up in the expenses scandal and you begin to see how it is that the legitimacy of the state is in crisis. From bankers bonuses to public sector cuts and the inequity of racist sentencing more and more people are questioning the very basis of justice in the UK.

As a modern 21^st century democracy we are supposed to be guaranteed the ‘separation of powers’, of the state and the judiciary a widely accepted model for governance of a modern democratic state. The concept of separation of powers assumes that the three categories of public power should have the necessary constitutional wherewithal to resist encroachment or influence by the others. The state is divided into branches, each with separate and independent powers and areas of responsibility so that no one branch has more power than the other branches. The normal division of branches is into an executive (the part that executes the laws), a legislature (the part that makes laws) and a judiciary (the courts that decide if laws have been broken). Britain’s unwritten constitution is predicated on this model.

If you check the Judiciary of England and Wales website you might be encouraged to see their commitment to Judicial Independence. Their opening statement says: “It is vitally important in a democracy that individual judges and the judiciary as a whole are impartial and independent of all external pressures... so that those who appear before them... can have confidence that their cases will be decided fairly and in accordance with the law. When carrying out their judicial function they must be free of any improper influence. Such influence could come from any number of sources. It could arise from improper pressure by the executive or the legislature... the media... or other judges, in particular more senior judges.”

That said as black British citizens we should expect that sentencing decisions for those involved in the London riots would be free from racial bias and political pressure from external sources. We should have complete confidence in judicial objectivity. We do not enjoy that confidence that has been systematically eroded by a number of critical factors.

Firstly who are the judiciary? In 2008 Jack Straw told MPs that “there were too few women and people from Black and Asian backgrounds [who] are appointed [as] judges”. Yet two years later we read in the Guardian (24 February 2010) “The lack of diversity among judges is affecting the experience of people who use the courts and limiting judicial perspectives on critical legal issues.” The Neuberger Report on diversity in the judiciary further criticises the lack of diversity with statistics in 2009 showing that only 19% of judges were women, and 4.5% from ethnic minority backgrounds.

Judge Barbara Mensa - but statistics show that there is a real lack of diversity in the judicial system

Numerous criticisms still abound decrying the continued and preferred selection of the white, male, and upper-class candidates for judicial posts. Whilst the judiciary might afford themselves the delusion of considering themselves free from racism and undue influence, they are neither free of institutional racism nor representative of the diverse community they serve.

And there are there worrying examples of what happens to black professionals within the criminal justice system who dare to speak out.  

In her currently ‘banned” book Olivea Ebanks, a former prison service manager who took HMPS to court for racism quotes the Home Affairs select Committee Report entitled   ‘Nature and extent of young black peoples overrepresentation’ in the criminal justice system (2007).

“Once they have been charged with an offence, black young offenders are significantly less likely to be given unconditional bail compared to white young offenders and black young offenders are more likely to be remanded in custody compared to white re-offenders. In 2004/05, 8.1% of black people under 18 were remanded in custody, compared to 5.1% for Asian and 4.4% for white people of the same age-group.  REF: 24.

We know that young black people and young people of 'mixed' ethnicity, when sentenced, are more likely to receive more punitive sentences than young white people. Whereas black young offenders accounted for 6% of total offences in 2004-05, they received 11.6% of total custodial sentences.”

You can read more here: http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmhaff/181/18105.htm”

Ms Ebanks’ recounting of these facts has been met with condemnation from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) and the Judicial College where she works. Ms Ebanks was suspended from working with judges on matters of leadership and equality and disciplined for publishing her book and sharing information that is already in the public domain by way of being heard in open court. She is now preparing to go to court again to defend her right to raise issues of racism in the workplace and tell her story.



Olivea Ebanks (picture by BBC)

 Her employer’s reactions to her sharing that simple fact that she won rulings against HMPS, and highlighting how MoJ have subsequently treated her, does not scream of a Ministry of Justice committed to even-handedness.

If this is how they treat their employees then what hope for those black suspects who they believe have broken the law.

In a recent poll carried out among The Voice readers sixty-one percent felt that images of rioters and looters, caught up in the violent disturbances over UK in August, unfairly singled out black men (The Voice 16 August 2011). Again this is not something the Government or Minister Ken Clarke seems to be interested in rectifying. When it comes to the matter of fair and equal treatment from those who have been entrusted with said responsibility, it would appear that they are capable of only two responses: either they go all out to discredit and undermine you as with Ms Ebanks or they simply ignore us.

When you combine the perception of unfair targeting and criminalising of black people with the extremely worrying trend to make an example of the rioters, it is plain to see that we have a recipe for differential enforcement of looting and disorder laws. This in turn will certainly contribute substantially to increasing the already criminally high over-representation of black people in prison in England and Wales.

Of the recent riots Andrew Neilson, of the Howard League for Penal Reform, told the Times it was "fair enough" that the public disturbances were seen as an aggravating factor but added: "There seems to be a complete lack of proportionality to some of the sentences. These make a mockery of proportionality, which is a key principle of the justice system."

The Guardian revealed that magistrates were advised by justices' clerks to disregard normal sentencing guidelines when dealing with riot-related cases. This has alarmed some lawyers, who warn it will trigger a spate of appeals.

In sentencing four convicted Manchester rioters, a crown court judge, Andrew Gilbart QC, made clear why he was disregarding sentencing guidelines when he said "the offences of the night of 9 August … takes them completely outside the usual context of criminality".

Daniel Hamilton, director of Big Brother Watch, which campaigns for civil liberties has quite rightly said, "You should judge every individual case on its merits and every person on the basis of what they've actually done, rather than this creep towards... judicial activism, where politicians put undue influence on the judiciary."

All of this is against the backcloth of the BBC airing programmes asking if there is a “problem” with young black men; their insensitive and inflammatory questioning of Darcus Howe about the riots, concerted attempts to discredit community Tottenham activist like Stafford Scott who resigned after being mislead by the discredited IPCC and Enoch Powell type comments made by well-known historian and broadcaster David Starkey blaming ‘black culture’ for turning white youngsters into looters. Then we have had the critical attacks on multiculturalism by the Prime Minister and others in his party and the systematic degradation of the all of the recommendations of the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry report.

What we have is a layering effect where black people are consistently racially profiled by the police, portrayed as potential criminals and prone to violence without provocation by the media. The results are a reflection of the largely white upper class judiciary most of whom are incapable of viewing black defendants dispassionately.

The question remains: can a largely white elitist judiciary and one known for its tendency to hand out harsher sentences to black youth discharge their duties and exercise judicial independence and discretion fairly? My answer is a resounding ‘No!’

How can they make fair decisions that are not influenced by personal or societal racism political and political considerations rather than on the principles of law and justice? Of late I have seen less and less of the tripartite separation of powers. On a visit to Warrington in August Prime Minister David Cameron said: "It's up to the courts to make decisions about sentencing, but they've decided to send a tough message, and it's very good that the courts feel able to do that." This tough message of course was only sent after Mr Cameron as head of state sent his own unequivocal message... "And to the lawless minority, the criminals who've taken what they can get, I say this -- we will track you down, we will find you, we will charge you, we will punish you. You will pay for what you have done."

Could Mr Cameron’s strong words have influenced a judiciary infected with institutional racism in many ways and his endorsement of their flouting sentencing guidelines have given a green light to racism?

Just how much faith should we have in a 95.5% white, male, upper-class judiciary?

"There's no doubt that in certain circumstances a firm sentence is required," said John Cooper, a senior crime and civil liberties barrister. He goes on to say "What concerns me is that the whole range of the sentencing process has been unduly and disproportionately cranked up... influenced implicitly or explicitly by public opinion."

Well this concerns me too. If the sentencing process has been cranked up by institutional racism and political interference where does that leave us?

In the two hundred plus years since the abolition of the slave trade what is different in terms of white dominance in our institutions, in our politics and among our legislators and judiciary? Is the judiciary truly above the racism and the undue influence of politicians?  

In light of biased media coverage and weighty political involvement and/or opinions about what the judiciary should do with rioters plus proven racial bias in conviction rates of young black men, we cannot allow judicial racism to run rampant just because the judiciary say that they are fair. Amid our ongoing battle for justice that includes our disquiet about arrest and conviction rates, and deaths in custody, we have to be vigilant and willing to challenge racism and injustice.

We as a country have been here before. After the 1981 moral panic on mugging and the uprising that took place that year the judiciary handed out exemplary sentences. The black community became increasing politicised in response to profoundly unjust sentences and we all know what happened in 1986. The issue of race and justice has to be pushed back onto the political agenda and they only way that is gong to happen is when we embark on a determined campaign to ensure that the injustice faced by black people in the dock is right back on the political agenda.

Lee Jasper (Chair of the London Race and Criminal Justice Consortium).

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