In recent years it has been demonstrated that in the area of race relations, legislation has proved insufficient. The Race Relations Act already prohibited discrimination in the provision of "goods, facilities and services to the public or a section of the public", leaving outside its scope the operational activities of the police, including, in most cases, the investigation of crime, the courts have narrowly interpreted this definition, for example in, ‘Farah v Commissioner for Police for the Metropolis’London police were summoned by 17-year-old Zeinab Farah, when a gang of white youths attacked her with a dog. When the officers turned up, they promptly arrested Zeinab Farah herself, charging her, bizarrely, with causing injury to the dog.
After the case against her was thrown out, she sued the officers and the commissioner of the Metropolitan Police for discrimination. Police officers were liable in this situation for both direct and indirect discrimination because they were providing a service to her. This was however only successful in a private civil claim, under the new legislation action would be available and success far more likely.
Discrimination in dealing with suspects in investigations or stop and search was not covered by the legislation. Nor could the commissioner be liable for the actions of his officers under the normal employment rule, because police are historically not employees but independent office-holders.
These shortfalls were unacceptable considering these are areas in which the individual is most vulnerable to racial discrimination, as was apparent in the reaction of the police and other authorities in response to the murder of a young black man, Stephen Lawrence. The MacPherson enquiry was established to investigate the response to the murder and subsequently their findings of ‘institutional racism’ lead to further attacks on the inadequacy of the current legislation. Thus the Amended Race Relations Act 2000 has now been introduced to combat these deficiencies. One will now discuss the relevant provisions in relation to this essay.
Firstly the Amended Act makes it unlawful for a public authority to discriminate or victimize a person on racial grounds in carrying out any of its functions. Crucially, this is not confined to employment, education, and services, but applies to all functions of specified public authorities. Law enforcement, inclusive of the police, and local authorities will for the first time be subject to the legislative provisions. A further significant amendment relates to chief police officers and the fact that for the first time they can be made vicariously liable for acts of discrimination.
Advantages of these amendments cases etc that this will seek to overcome and then Anyone who can demonstrate that people in similar circumstances in other racial groups have been treated differently will now have a case. The black motorist stopped and searched 34 times by the West Midlands police and whose recent common law action failed, would have much clearer redress under the Race Relations Act.
In the past such cases have had to be brought under civil actions for false arrest and false imprisonment. Several cases against the Metropolitan police resulted in record compensation payouts including £220,000 in a case involving a Chinese hairdresser from south London.
In the wake of those cases the Court of Appeal imposed a maximum £30,000 compensation guideline. The use of the Race Relations Act could open the door to much higher awards again. There is no ceiling on payments in discrimination cases involving employment.
But the 'more interesting prospect' as far as the CRE is concerned is the extension of its power to carry out general and formal investigations into the police.
The CRE can now choose to look at the pattern of suspects who are stopped and searched by the police and see if there is any gross disparity.
Its powers to order a formal investigation could see the CRE working alongside the Police Complaints Authority where there is a strong suspicion of racist practice. SEE RECENT ACTION IN RELATION TO TV PROGRAMME EXPOSING RACISM IN POLICE FORCES ETC ETC…
Disadvantages
Excluding liability for indirect discrimination by the police in performing their normal duties creates a new anomaly. In every other provision of the current law, both direct and indirect discrimination are prohibited equally. More importantly, the omission of indirect discrimination leaves untouched the major problem identified by the MacPherson report. The Commission for Racial Equality said the amendment was the most significant reform of Britain's Race Relations legislation for 20 years. But the fact that the amendment was only restricted to direct discrimination was a "serious omission".
Extending the law to deal with indirect discrimination was the great innovation when the present Race Relations Act was passed in 1976, reflecting the growing recognition that it was the hidden, often unconscious, kinds of discrimination that were the most insidious and widespread.
The focus of the Lawrence report was on the prevalence of institutional discrimination, which is commonly indirect. The disastrous failure to bring Stephen Lawrence's killers to justice stemmed from attitudes and practices in investigating crime which could have played a similar part in the many other investigations into the deaths of black people, such as Michael Menson and Ricky Reel. Direct discrimination can hardly ever be established.
Further proposals for reform??
CONCLUSION
In conclusion as Jack Straw acknowledged during the passage of the Bill to make the amendments, there is still a long way to go to make Britain a ‘beacon of equality’ and despite the initial praise, the legislation has suffered extensive criticism at its failure to acknowledge indirect discrimination in its reforms, with this form of discrimination left omitted further reforms are necessary…..QUOTE FROM CRE…
SCARMAN??? REFORMS ETC ETC
Farah v Commissioner for the Police of the Metropolis [1998] QB 65 (CA)
