The Macpherson report was an inquiry into the death of Stephen Lawrence, a teenager of Jamaican origin who was killed by an unprovoked racially motivated attack. After police negligence and other careless mistakes during the investigation, five suspects were arrested but never convicted of the crime. The Lawrence family filed a formal complaint with the Police Complaints Authority. The Home secretary ordered a public investigation to be carried out and the results of this inquiry were compiled into what is now a ground-breaking document in the Macpherson report.
The Macpherson report found that the initial Metropolitan Police Service had been incompetent. Police officers hat made major errors including failing to give first aid on the scene, obstructing the investigation by failing to pursue obvious leads and arrest suspects. The report suggested that the recommendations under the 1981 Scarman report had been ignored after the Brixton race riots.
After a lengthy inquiry, Macpherson found that the police was institutionally racist. By this it was meant: “...the collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture or ethnic origin”. The report also came up with seventy recommendations for reform in various areas. The main outcome of the report was the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which was a major breakthrough in English law, as it abandoned the prohibition against double jeopardy. This means a person can be tried more than once for the same crime on the grounds of new and compelling evidence. Macpherson identified that to regulate institutional racism reform was needed in other areas of society such as the civil service, education, NHS, local governments and the judicial system.
After Macpherson the legislative measures taken in the form of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and the Race Relations Amendment Act 2000 were clearly a step towards addressing race equality. However there are apparent criticisms of the report which will be explored now.
As institutional racism was also brought up by the Scarman Report back in 1981, Macpherson attempted to position the concept of it in a more sophisticated way. Scarman left “the understanding of racism an ambiguous legacy”. This is because he only defined institutional racism as overt racist policy consciously pursued by an institution, as illustrated in this part of a quote “If by [institutionally racist] it is meant that [Britain] is a society which knowingly, as a matter of policy, discriminates against black people, I reject the allegation”. Macpherson wanted to prove the police were influenced by institutional racism and not the personalities of their members. He focuses more clearly on the police institution rather that the actions of individual officers. He locates the source of racism in the social and cultural life of police officers rather than in the dynamics of operational policing itself. However a key factor that he identifies was the various forms of contact between police and numerous sections of the public.
It is understood by Macpherson that it is not the character of the contact between mostly white officers and black people in law-enforcement situations but rather the relationships which that white officer chooses to embark on outside the police force. The reason why the white police officer does not suspect all white people as suspects is because they socialise with a diversity of white people which are not criminal. As they do not associate with black people outside their personal relationships they only cross paths with them in a confrontational police environment. They therefore impose their attitudes which are derived from their restricted interactions with ethnic minorities. Macpherson on the other hand fails to notice this as he devises a policy agenda that is largely a reiteration of strategies that have already failed in the past.
Macphersons recommendation for more rule-tightening is accompanied by his suggestion for performance indicators in racist crime investigations. He also calls for a better coordination and a review of procedures without clarifying what exactly should be changed . He has not specified as to how this should be carried out. Lea reckons that a better approach would be organisational change in terms of taking autonomy away from police officers during investigations when considering serious crimes. Suggestions put forward for the creation of an independent investigating magistrate would be more appropriate.
In his recommendations, Macpherson also calls for an increase in ethnic minority recruitment. Figures, however, have not increased by a significant amount in the last 20 years. This spurs the thought of why this has not happened. The root of this issue is still unknown and was overlooked by both Scarman and Macpherson.
Stop and search is seen as necessary by Macpherson who believed it should be even more tightly controlled. This cannot be understood by Lea. It is maintained that stop and search has little to with racism and more to do with economic discrimination. With the concentration of the black community living in economically deprived areas, other factors such as social class may affect judgement of the police officers, which legitimises the stopping and search of black people. In theory this should also apply to white people in similar situations. However it is proclaimed that black people gain more attention from police due to notions of dangerousness and disorderly behaviour. As much as Macpherson believes stop and search to be beneficial, with every stop and search to be recorded under his recommendations, statistics have shown that it leads to more stops and searches with fewer arrests. Lea believes Macpherson has missed the point because he believes it is the “major factor in generating police racism”.The strategies have had had minimal impact since Scarman which Macpherson is aware of, however fails to adopt a more radical policy agenda directed at the structure and organisation of policing and the relationship between police and ethnic minorities in law enforcement situations.
Three main RRAs have been passed since 1965 and one could argue that the first one brought about little change. A reason behind this is that the government had not shown any clear commitment or allocated adequate resources to racial equality programmes outlined in these acts. The RRA 1965/1968 included that the state should ban discrimination on the basis of race and colour/ethnic origin through legal sanctions and public regulatory agencies.
THE RRA
In 1965, the Race Relations Act was passed by the Labour government. The purpose of this act was to prevent discrimination on the grounds of race. The act was seen as important in establishing concern of the state with racial discrimination and as affirmation of broad objective of using legislative action to achieve good relations. While this act made racial discrimination unlawful, a new act was past in 1968 under the same government, outlawing discrimination in housing and employment. These two acts together helped with the setting up of special bodies to deal with problems faced by immigrants in relation to discrimination, social adjustment and welfare and helped educate the population as whole about race relations. With such schemes implemented, it would therefore minimise the risk of racialised conflict developing in Britain, as there was already a notion of too many ethnic minorities. The state refused to revise the 1976 Act to give it a more positive approach against racism and discrimination.
From 1965-1975, the successive governments (Conservative and Labour) left issues of tackling racial discrimination to the Race Relations Board (implemented by the 1965 Act) and the Community relations Commission (set up the 1968 Act), with little support and direction given by central government itself. This last point implies that the lack of government intervention is why the race Relations Act 1976 was passed; the previous acts had shown limited impact which therefore called for new and more effective strategies to deal in areas such as employment. Research and statistics showed that the legislation passed in the 1960s had brought about little or no change, as high levels of discrimination persisted.
The RRA 1976 defined discrimination under two sections; direct and indirect. Direct discrimination as defined the 1976 Act: “where a person treats another person less favourably on racial grounds than he treats or would treat someone else”. Indirect discrimination is slightly differently defined: “… consisting of treatment which may be described as equal in a formal sense between different racial groups but discriminatory in its effect on one particular racial group”.
As a result of the ineffectiveness of the 1968 Act, the Select Committee in Race Relations & Immigration launched a major investigation in 1975. This report looked at the situation from an administrative angle and highlighted matters that needed to belong on the political agenda. The first argument stated that one needs to go beyond the narrow definition of discrimination used in the 1965 and 1968 Acts. The inclusion of institutionalised/unintended forms of discrimination was proposed. The second argument consisted of the need to strengthen administrative structures and legal powers of the Race Relations Board, which would allow for more effective implementation of anti-discrimination policies. It also recommended the inclusion of penalties for those found guilty of discrimination. Finally, the committee held that there was a need for a more interventionist stance from central government, specifically from the Home Office.
The most important innovations include an extension of objectives of law not to cover only intention discrimination but racial disadvantage brought about by systematic racism. The other improvement was the reorganisation of the Race Relations Board and the Community Relations Commission which combined the two into one joint agency. This is now known as the Commission of Race Relations. There was also a different procedure for the handling of individual complaints of discrimination. This merge of the two organisations was seen as a way applying the law and promotion of equality and good race relations. Another one of its duties was to keep the 1976 Act under review and draw up proposals for amending it.
However, research proved the 1976 Act had short comings. Some claimed it very ineffective and likened it to “machinery not functioning properly”. It was only unlawful to discriminate in employment education and public services, therefore making it perfectly lawful to discriminate outside them. There was a serious doubt as to whether the RRA 1976 bound the police as illustrated in the case Farah v Police of Metropolis. Police officers are liable for racial discrimination when providing assistance/protection to the public but the Act. The Act also did not hold Chief Commissioner of Police vicariously liable for his constables which therefore permitted institutional racism to “flourish in the Metropolitan Police Service without any legal check.”
The government accepted the existence of institutional racism in other public authorities which is the result of new legislation in the Race Relations Amendment Act 2000. This Act in theory ties up all the loose ends of the 1976 Act, in that it is now illegal to discriminate in any functions, and that the police is now subject to vicarious liability in the law of tort.
In conclusion, comparatively against measures taken before the Macpherson report and the RRAA 2000, I believe that the government is more sensitive and accommodating towards ethnic minorities. Legislation before this period was very much centred on getting rid of ethnic minorities or endeavouring to stop immigration. Sandra Fredman indicates in her journal that we have to give the RRAA 2000 and further legislative initiatives being brought forward by the EU time to prove themselves, which I deem to be correct. John Lea talks about a complete reorganisation of the Metropolitan Police Service and the fact that stop and search is a main factor in causing institutional racism. The truth of the matter is that there is little case law since the RRAA 2000 and this may prove a point in itself. However I believe that this is not enough. In my opinion, one cannot stop racism and discrimination within different areas of society as people cannot always be regulated by the law. Even though the law is there to deter criminal activity, if someone has a prerogative of killing another person based on the colour of their skin, then they will. Society needs to be re-educated on being tolerant and informed on other cultures in order for integration to run smoothly. This can only take place in institutions such as education, where children are taught from a young age and thus become socialised into values that promote racial unity. Older generations are more set in their ways and come from an era where ethnic minorities were accepted as subordinates. With facts such as the British National Party gaining more popularity and more people voting for the Right, it leads us to other questions. Unfortunately, racism cannot be eradicated and equality will always remain dubious.
Bibilography
Books:
Race and Racism in contemporary Britain – John Solomos 1989, Palgrave Macmillan
After Macpherson: Policing After the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry – Alan Marlow and Barry Loveday, 2000, Russell House
Websites:
BBC website – Stephen Lawrence: the facts
http://news.bbc.co.uk/vote2001/hi/english/main_issues/sections/facts/newsid_1190000/1190971.stm
Guardian website – Macpherson report: a summary
Britkid website – timeline of ethnic minorities
http://www.britkid.org/si-postwartimeline.html
Journals:
Equality – a new generation? – Sandra Fredman 2001, Industrial Law Journal Vol 30 (2) p. 145-168
The Macpherson report and the question of institutional racism – John Lea 2000, Howard Journal of Criminal Justice Blackwell Synergy
Race and Racism in contemporary Britain, John Solomos 1989
Swanadan, 1982 in Race and Racism in contemporary Britain, John Solomos 1989
Race and Racism in contemporary Britain, John Solomos 1989
Joshi and Carter 1984 in Race and Racism in contemporary Britain, John Solomos 1989
Race and Racism in contemporary Britain, John Solomos 1989
Deakin 1968, in Race and Racism in contemporary Britain, John Solomos 1989
Race and Racism in contemporary Britain, John Solomos 1989
http://news.bbc.co.uk/vote2001/hi/english/main_issues/sections/facts/newsid_1190000/1190971.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/vote2001/hi/english/main_issues/sections/facts/newsid_1190000/1190971.stm
After Macpherson: Reflections on Policing After the Stephen Lawrence Enquiry
The Macpherson Report and the Question of Institutional Racism
http://news.bbc.co.uk/vote2001/hi/english/main_issues/sections/facts/newsid_1190000/1190971.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/1999/feb/24/lawrence.ukcrime12
http://news.bbc.co.uk/vote2001/hi/english/main_issues/sections/facts/newsid_1190000/1190971.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/1999/feb/24/lawrence.ukcrime12
The Macpherson Report and the Question of Institutional Racism
After Macpherson: Reflections on Policing After the Stephen Lawrence Enquiry
The Macpherson Report and the Question of Institutional Racism
Mansfield, The Macpherson Report and the Question of Institutional Racism
http://news.bbc.co.uk/vote2001/hi/english/main_issues/sections/facts/newsid_1190000/1190971.stm
The Macpherson Report and the Question of Institutional Racism
Equality – a new Generation
Jenkins & Solomos 1987 in Race and Racism in contemporary Britain
Race and Racism in contemporary Britain
Lester & Bindman 1972 in Race and Racism in contemporary Britain
http://www.britkid.org/si-postwartimeline.html
Race and Racism in contemporary Britain
Abott 1971 in Race and Racism in contemporary Britain
Smith 1977 in Race and Racism in contemporary Britain
Equality – a new Generation?
Race and Racism in contemporary Britain
Select Committee 1975 in Race and Racism in contemporary Britain
Race and Racism in contemporary Britain
Jenkins & Solomos, 1987 in Race and Racism in contemporary Britain
Equality – a new Generation
[1996] EWCA Civ 684; [1998] QB 65
Equality – a new Generation
BBC Storyville: All White in Barking