A new report shows the justice system is stacked against black and ethnic minority defendants

Mr Lammy’s proposals for improving the situation, including deferred prosecution in exchange for a guilty plea and rehabilitation programme, are both welcome and deserving of proper attention

The report shows the discrepancy between white and BAME defendants when it comes to criminal charges (Getty)

David Lammy’s review of the way black and ethnic minority defendants are treated by the criminal justice system had already produced some important findings, even before the publication of its final report today.

In November last year, the Labour MP for Tottenham published a damning statistical analysis which pointed to the apparently discriminatory approach taken in relation to BAME individuals who come before the courts. For instance, black men convicted in Magistrates’ Courts were shown to be more than twice as likely as white men to receive custodial sentences. And in jail, BAME males are nearly five times more likely to end up in high security wings for public order offences than white men.

Today, Mr Lammy sets out the picture more fully and it is indeed not a pretty one. Is it any wonder that the British-born BAME community is so untrusting of the justice system in this country when there is so much evidence to back up their feeling that it does not operate on a level playing field?

Against this backdrop, Mr Lammy’s proposals for improving the situation are both welcome and deserving of proper attention. When all eyes are focussed on Brexit that may be difficult, but the issues identified by the Lammy Review are too urgent to be placed indefinitely on the back-burner. Moreover, so much store has been set by the quality of the UK’s legal system during the Brexit debate that there is arguably no better time to ensure that our faith in it is justified.

Undoubtedly the most eye-catching of the report’s recommendations is that individuals facing charges for low-level crime could “defer” prosecution in return for admitting their misdeed and participating in an agreed programme of rehabilitation such as treatment to combat drug addiction, for example. Successful completion of the programme would result in charges being dropped, while defendants who did not comply would face criminal proceedings.

Mr Lammy argues that such a measure would help to ease the discrepancy between the proportion of BAME defendants who plead not guilty (40 per cent of charges) set against the proportion of white defendants who do the same (31 per cent). This difference is, says Mr Lammy, a consequence of the lack of trust many BAME offenders have in the courts giving them a reduced sentence if they plead guilty. But the result of their decision to gamble on a "not guilty" plea is that convictions result in longer jail terms, with all the knock-on implications that derive from spending long periods behind bars.

The idea of deferring prosecutions is radical and will meet with opposition from some hardliners. Yet it has obvious attractions. Most fundamentally, it creates a wholly different framework within which minor offences can be examined and dealt with: one that is by turns less confrontational, more hopeful, and puts rehabilitation ahead of – and standing alone from – punishment.

At a practical level, the impact of Mr Lammy’s proposal would be to reduce the number of cases before the courts, thus potentially cutting the cost burden on the taxpayer (albeit that the new system would incur its own costs). It would also, in theory, reduce the number of individuals going to prison for low-level offences. That too carries a cost benefit but, in the context of so much evidence about the failure of custodial sentences to prevent reoffending, also holds out the possibility of reducing crime rates overall.

One caveat to the broadly positive reception concerns the possibility that a deferral scheme might encourage individuals who are genuinely not guilty of any criminal activity to nonetheless undertake rehabilitation programmes in order to avoid any danger of an adverse court judgement, and the consequent hefty sentence. That carries with it a risk of pushing the innocent into admitting guilt and of unnecessary treatment programmes being delivered to people who simply do not need them, at a cost to the public purse and for no obvious benefit.

Nevertheless, on the face of it Mr Lammy’s neat proposal has much to commend it, as do other recommendations – including those regarding the need to make prosecutions “race-blind” where possible and suggesting a national target to achieve a representative judiciary by 2025.

The Prime Minister, whose predecessor commissioned this review, should give its conclusions and its proposals the attention they deserve. For ultimately what Mr Lammy has shown beyond all doubt is that the status quo is discriminatory against significant portions of the British public – and that will not do.