GB News commentator Sophie Corcoran claims programme is discriminatory
The Bar Council is facing an employment tribunal discrimination claim brought by a white journalist and GB News commentator who says her application to its 10,000 Black Interns programme was rejected because of her race.
Sophie Corcoran, a Queen Mary University of London politics graduate whose writing has appeared in the Daily Mail, Daily Express and ConservativeHome, says she applied to the scheme last October after considering a career at the bar.
The programme, run in partnership with the 10,000 Interns Foundation, offers six-week placements at chambers and legal organisations paid at the London Living Wage of £14.80 per hour. Eligibility is restricted to applicants who are Black or of Black heritage.
Corcoran says she received confirmation her application had been received and that she would hear back in November regarding potential placements. She never did. “I believe it is because of my race,” she said.
On her CrowdJustice fundraising page, she wrote: “I found it difficult to believe that in modern Britain a professional opportunity connected to the legal profession could be limited in this way. The Bar Council represents the legal profession and the rule of law, and I believe it should uphold the principle that opportunities should not be allocated on the basis of race.”
She has now lodged a claim at the employment tribunal alleging loss of employment opportunity and discrimination under the Equality Act. She is seeking an initial £1,500 through CrowdJustice to fund her legal team, with a stretch target of £50,000. At the time of writing she had raised £4,180.
“This case is not simply about my own experience,” Corcoran continues on her fundraising page. “I am pursuing it because I believe that no person in Britain should be denied opportunities because of the colour of their skin.”
In response to the claim, a spokesperson for the Bar Council said:
“The Bar Council has been served with a claim under the Equality Act relating to the 10,000 Black Interns programme. We have filed our defence which denies all of the claimant’s allegations and we will vigorously contest the claim. The tribunal proceedings will not impact the delivery of the 2026 internship programme this summer and we are looking forward to welcoming this year’s interns. In light of the court proceedings, we do not intend to make any further comments.”
In a separate statement, 10,000 Interns Foundation said it “exists to expand access to opportunity for underrepresented talent, supporting them toward careers that have historically been out of reach for many”.
“Each year we collect data from our partners and evaluate the evidence of underrepresentation across different sectors,” it continued. “We are confident in the legal basis of our work, which is grounded in the Equality Act and reflects established principles of lawful, proportionate positive action.”
Em… 10,000 Black Interns programme. It’s in the name of the scheme?
Wouldn’t she have seen that before applying?
The point
————-
Your head
Respectfully, you’re missing the point.
Corcoran’s case is that it is unlawful discrimination for the Bar Council to be offering such a scheme to black individuals only.
Whether that case is well-founded will be decided in due course.
To see why your reasoning is invalid, consider this. Imagine that you saw a chambers advertising pupillage only to white candidates. Imagine further that a non-white pupillage seeker complained about this. Would you be saying to that candidate that they have no valid complaint because “you surely saw that this position was only for white people before you applied?”
For clarity, I am not saying that my (obviously discriminatory) example is necessarily equivalent to the Bar Council scheme. I’m simply pointing out that your reasoning is wrong – and more work needs to be done to justify why the Bar Council scheme is lawful (if it is).
It isn’t the right way, but it does hopefully help address the diversity problem.