I was proud to host an online roundtable discussion on bias in the magistracy for Magistrates’ Association (MA) members as part of Black History Month. We heard from two distinguished panellists; Deputy Senior District Judge Tan Ikram, who is the Deputy Chief Magistrate and a contributor to the Equal Treatment Bench Book, and Professor Heidi Mirza from the University of London.
The event focused on the findings of the MA’s 2022 survey of MA members who identified as Black, Asian, and minority ethnic (BAME). The survey highlighted that many Black, Asian, and minority ethnic magistrates experience bias when they are sitting, and the steps we can take to address racism and unconscious bias.
The survey revealed a range of personal quotes, while some reported no negative encounters, others shared troubling incidents of bias, racism and microaggression. The personal stories of BAME magistrates were collated under six headings:
- Differential treatment
- Stereotyping and bias against defendants
- The shortcomings of mentoring support
- Power dynamics and reluctance to challenge
- Microaggression and discrimination
- Hostility and constant scrutiny.
The examples given under the above headings, revealed the complex, often difficult realities that Black, Asian, and minority ethnic magistrates face in their roles, particularly concerning bias, stereotyping and lack of support.
The ‘Open to All?’ event was used as the foundation to present and reflect on the findings, propose practical solutions and finally empower all magistrates to utilise the Equal Treatment Bench Book to understand their own biases.
The session
I outlined the context as to how the survey came about and the many individuals who contributed to the final report, and used the analogy of a ‘village-type approach’ for the report to achieve its outcome, that is, many individuals gave their time and provided feedback.
I stressed the importance of seeking allies if the negative encounters are to be challenged and overcome. We need all magistrates to bring about the change that the judiciary requires.
I then posed the question, should we expect more from magistrates, when they are simply a reflection of the community in which we all live? Are magistrates no different from any other citizens? I made reference to other uniformed professionals, where criticisms about their behaviour continue to be raised, such as the media coverage of some members of the Metropolitan Police, sections of the Armed Forces and the Fire Service, where one could argue, that we should expect better.
I then reminded the audience that it is not simply about race, it is the intersectionality, and the multi-faceted complexity of the narratives that some magistrates experience. A magistrate might not only be Black, Asian and or a minority ethnic magistrate, but they could also be from the LGBT+ community, a young magistrate or a disabled magistrate. There can be no monolithic thinking when we have these discussions, as there is also the issue of a person’s socio-economic background or one of the other protected characteristics.
I concluded the introduction to the session by stating that I hoped that my comments and those from the guest speakers would provide food-for-thought.
Tan Ikram spoke about his lived experience, his judicial journey and the important role that magistrates can play by leading from the front.
He reminded the audience that equity is about recognising differences, that we are not the same, and that our cultural and lived experiences ensure that no race is a homogenous group. That the important role that we play as magistrates makes us more than just citizens, as we take an oath to be fair and impartial, without fear or favour.
Tan explored conscious and unconscious bias which segued nicely into Heidi Mirza’s presentation on having difficult conversations.
Heidi’s presentation challenged us to have courageous but careful open conversations about race and racism. She argued that there is nothing unconscious about racial bias. This is because the ‘idea of race’ is a conscious pseudo-scientific construction, which evolved over 400 years ago, to fuel the enslavement and genocide of those defined as inferior and less human. As such, it is hard to tackle and a tall order for individuals to unlearn such a deep legacy of racial thinking.
She went on to say that institutional policies such as ‘equality, diversity and inclusion’ often fall short of a solution. Everyday microaggressions about race, gender, class, disability, and sexuality, such as asking if you are British or seeing certain racial and religious groups as a threat or less intelligent, manifest in everyday interactions.
Her video clip of a heated discussion between a group of Black, Asian and white people demonstrated the emotional impasses it produced when each party felt excluded or accused. Given the heightened feelings of pain and hurt, she argues, it takes courage to back down, say sorry and recognise the trauma of others.
Among the many solutions Professor Mirza suggested, was that we need to listen to each other and have honest discussions held in good faith, in the context of recognising the weight of unaddressed racialised histories, which we carry on our bodies and into our societies.
Finally, we wrapped up the session with a few practical solutions, I reminded attendees of the support and resources available to members; the excellent MA learn resources, the members’ support line (if any member has been affected by the session and would like to speak with someone, or would simply like a confidential conversation with an experienced and trained peer member on any matter), four diversity and inclusion networks that members can reach out to (BAME, LGBT+, magistrates with disabilities, and young magistrates); for reference, the Equal Treatment Bench Book, or, the MA’s recently launched buddy scheme, for anyone who is considering taking on the role of a presiding justice, sit in the youth or family court, become an appraiser or mentor or apply for one of the many MA policy board positions.
