Mr X is a white Australian, finished high school, is literate in English and expresses himself clearly.
Mr Y is an Aborigine who left high school as soon as he could to try to get a job in a trade. He has difficulty understanding English, cannot read or write very well at all.
Mr X and Mr Y are charged with the same crime (let's say it's the offence of stealing by finding, since that's been in the news). The rules of procedural fairness and the law say that Mr X and Mr Y should be treated equally. This is formal equality.
However, the nature of the criminal law (i.e. the need for highly developed and confident language skills) and the courtroom (i.e. the need to comprhend what is going on and the feel as comfortable as possible with the process) mean that Mr X is favoured. He has the language abilities. He had the communication and expression skills. Being a white Australian, he is more likely to be of the same ethnic/cultural background as the officers of the court, the judge, the jury and is therefore more likely to feel more comfortable than Mr Y. In this situation, regardless of the fact that the law says everyone will be treated fairly, Mr X will be favoured over Mr Y. This is institutionalised inequality.
There are many other examples:
* Rich litigant with better lawyer vs poorer litigant with shite lawyer or representing themselves (as often happens in the Family Court).
* Illegal immigrant representing himself vs Immigration minister counsel.
etc etc.
