We read with concern the barrister Sam Trefgarne’s letter (5 February) raising objections to Ciaran Thapar’s article on the use of rap evidence in criminal proceedings (What kind of society uses the lyrics of a song to jail you?, 31 January). According to Trefgarne: “Mr Thapar alleges an unfairness that simply does not exist.” Having acted as rap expert witnesses and researched this phenomenon, we know that, sadly, this unfairness does exist.
Far too often, rap is used in loose and inflammatory ways, especially in controversial joint enterprise and conspiracy cases – when large numbers of young Black defendants are swept into charges. While rap may not be the only evidence, there is alarmingly little other evidence against some defendants. Rap videos played in court do heavy lifting for the prosecution. The music – which, like other youth entertainment forms, is often very violent – can mislead jurors and invoke racist stereotypes.
Trefgarne states that rap evidence is “often confessional”. But our research shows that it is typically used to speak to nebulous notions like bad character, gang association and violent intent.
The Crown Prosecution Service is portrayed as a neutral agent upholding fair trial principles in the barrister’s account. No suggestion that racial bias, even unconsciously, might play a role. This sits very uneasily with new research findings that the CPS is significantly more likely to charge Black people than white people for similar offences.
Trefgarne says there are “strict safeguards on whether the jury is allowed to hear drill evidence”. Our experience suggests otherwise. Arguments about admissibility are overseen by judges, some of whom have been found to act in biased ways towards Black defendants and usually know nothing of rap culture. Strict safeguards, namely new legislation and charging guidance, are urgently needed.
Prof Eithne Quinn
University of Manchester
Dr Abenaa Owusu-Bempah
London School of Economics
