Stephen Akinsanya, a prominent Black barrister and OBE recipient, has reported an encounter at a London court car park where a security guard allegedly informed him he could not park because the area was “not for defendants.” The incident, which took place at the Royal Courts of Justice, has reignited discussions regarding racial profiling and the persistence of systemic bias within the United Kingdom’s legal infrastructure.
The encounter occurred during a routine professional visit to the Royal Courts of Justice, where Akinsanya was attending meetings with clients. According to Akinsanya, a security guard intercepted him as he attempted to use the parking facilities, instructing him to seek alternative parking. The guard allegedly asserted that the designated lot was reserved exclusively for defendants and their families, effectively suggesting that Akinsanya did not fit the profile of a legal professional entitled to access the space.
Akinsanya, who was awarded an OBE in June 2026 for his extensive work on youth knife crime awareness and community outreach, described the incident as a stark example of lingering racial bias. He noted that the assumption made by the security personnel—that he was a defendant rather than a member of the bar—reflects a deeper, often subconscious, profiling mechanism that continues to operate within public institutions.
The significance of this incident extends beyond a simple parking dispute. For legal professionals of color, such encounters are often viewed not as isolated misunderstandings, but as symptoms of a broader institutional culture that views Black individuals through a lens of criminality or suspicion rather than professional authority. By categorizing Akinsanya as a “defendant” based on his appearance, the security personnel effectively stripped him of his professional status before he had even entered the court.
This event occurs against a backdrop of long-standing criticism regarding the lack of diversity and the presence of systemic racism within the British judiciary. Akinsanya has been a vocal advocate for reform, frequently speaking on the need for the legal system to dismantle the barriers that marginalize minority practitioners and litigants. The incident at the Royal Courts of Justice serves as a tangible example of how these systemic issues manifest in the daily operations of the court, often at the hands of administrative or security staff who serve as the first point of contact for the public and professionals alike.
Legal experts have noted that such episodes reflect ongoing challenges in achieving equitable treatment within the courts. The consensus among these observers is that the judiciary cannot claim to be impartial if the environments surrounding the courtroom are governed by implicit biases. Experts emphasize that the responsibility for these failures often lies in a lack of rigorous sensitivity training and a failure to implement clear, non-discriminatory policies regarding the treatment of all court users.
Analysis:
The incident involving Stephen Akinsanya illustrates how subtle, yet pervasive, forms of discrimination persist within institutions tasked with the administration of justice. While a security guard might frame such an interaction as a procedural clarification or a simple mistake, the specific nature of the assumption—that a Black man is a defendant rather than a barrister—suggests an underlying cognitive bias. This is not a neutral error; it is an error rooted in a societal stereotype that associates Blackness with the role of the accused rather than the role of the advocate.
This perception aligns with broader statistical data indicating that minority individuals face disproportionate scrutiny and harsher treatment within legal settings, from the point of arrest to sentencing. When this bias is mirrored in the professional treatment of Black lawyers, it creates a hostile environment that can undermine the confidence of minority clients in the legal system. If a decorated barrister is viewed as a defendant in a car park, it raises critical questions about how an unknown Black defendant or witness is perceived by the same security and administrative apparatus.
Addressing these attitudes requires more than superficial diversity quotas. It necessitates targeted education and strict accountability measures within court administrations. The “gatekeeping” function of court security is a critical juncture where institutional bias is most likely to manifest. Without a systemic overhaul of how security personnel are trained to perceive and interact with a diverse public, the courts risk maintaining a facade of justice that is contradicted by the lived experiences of those who walk through their doors.
Moving forward, observers will be watching for the response from the Ministry of Justice and the administration of the Royal Courts of Justice. Key points of interest include whether the court will conduct a formal review of its security protocols and whether there will be a mandate for updated anti-bias training for all non-judicial staff. There is also a growing call for the legal profession to establish clearer reporting mechanisms for barristers and solicitors who experience discrimination within court precincts, ensuring that such incidents are documented and addressed rather than dismissed as anecdotal.
The conclusion of this matter will likely hinge on whether the institution views the event as an isolated human error or as a symptom of a structural failure. For Akinsanya and many of his peers, the incident is a reminder that professional accolades, such as an OBE, do not provide immunity from the prejudices of a system that still struggles to decouple race from criminality. The incident serves as a call for the legal system to ensure that the pursuit of justice begins not just at the judge’s bench, but at the very entrance of the court.
Sources:
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2026/aug/07/black-barrister-london-court-racism
Corrections
If you believe this article contains an error, contact Herald Express with the source URL and supporting evidence.
Story synopsis gathered from: Guardian International — source
