Should we be concerned about multiple tiers of British justice?

Telegraph

3 days ago

Stories about 'two-tier' policing and justice have become a frequent feature in the news. Just this week, there's been yet another 'two-tier' policing row over a pro-Palestine protestor dressed as a holocaust concentration camp inmate and Lord Hermer, the Attorney General, no less, has said allegations of 'two-tier' justice are 'disgusting '.
Then there's the ongoing reports about Lucy Connolly. She was sentenced to 31 months in prison for an ill-judged post on X about asylum seekers (which she later deleted). The appeal to reduce her sentence failed, but when serious offences receive lesser sentencing, there are legitimate grounds for concern. Everyone must be treated equally before the law, but public perception as to whether this remains the case is being harmed and presents a crisis of trust in our institutions. So, is the Attorney General wrong to express his criticism of those speaking up on the status quo?
My new report for Civitas delves into examples of 'two-tier' policing and justice. My findings indicate public perception around police impartiality and justice have indeed been eroded over the decades. None of this should be taken lightly, given impartiality is central to the police's commitment to discharge their duties, 'without fear or favour' – but there are examples of where policing might be viewed as operating, 'with fear and favour'.
Are some groups, like the white working class, treated differently to others? Are they treated equally to Black Lives Matter (who Starmer took the knee for, whilst in opposition), climate protestors or Muslim counter protestors following the Southport tragedy? Last summer's disorder was a focal point, but racial and religious sensitivities have long impacted justice for grooming gang survivors. A hierarchical hate crime policy for Britain's faith groups, plus allegations of two-tier policing since October 7, give rise to further questions about impartiality.
The existing policing approach reflects that rather than operating on a colour-blind or community-blind basis, the attempt was made by police to compensate for the allegation stemming from the Macpherson inquiry of 'institutional racism' – by policing different communities in different ways. Although this is well intentioned, it is not without consequence.
The Government have pushed back on this framing. In fact in April, the Home Affairs Committee Inquiry into the 2024 riots referred to 'unsubstantiated and disgraceful claims of 'two-tier policing''. The state's decisive action to quell disorder, post Southport against so-called 'far-Right thugs' (a narrative later proven to be false) was of course necessary, but it contrasts with the approach to the Roma riots in Harehills (Leeds) where at one point, the police retreated after becoming the target of the mob themselves, or disorder by predominantly Muslim counter-protestors in Bordesley Green (Birmingham) where journalists were targeted and a white man attacked outside a pub.
Remarkably, Leeds City Council issued a joint statement (a day after Harehills) praising the Romanian/Roma community contribution to, 'the diversity and richness of the Harehills'. Meanwhile, despite the serious public disorder in Birmingham, reports indicated 'a lack of police presence'. West Midlands Police consulted 'community leaders' prior to the disorder, and Harehills was largely viewed as a community issue.
The 'community leader' gatekeeper concept, when applied to some groups, but not others, introduces an element of police bias. Worst still, the Home Office X account referred to the post-Southport protestors as 'criminals' even before they had been tried in court, removing the legal principle of presumption of innocence. Justice for them was indeed swift – the disorder broke out on 30 July, with the first prison sentences announced a week later. Meanwhile, a suspended Labour councillor who pleaded not guilty to encouraging violent disorder last summer is going to trial in August 2025 – a year on.
But allegations of impartial policing or policy aren't restricted to how the state deals with public order. Take the recording of hate crime, or Orwellian non-crime-hate-incidents (NCHIs) for religion. Islamophobia and anti-Semitism are prioritised. The Government's secretive 'Islamophobia' working group, tasked with putting together a new definition should really pause until completion of the national grooming gang inquiry. That's because allegations of so-called 'Islamophobia' could stifle open discussion. But why does the Government not also define anti-Christian, anti-Hindu and anti-Sikh hatred, whilst they're at it? Or better still – treat them all on one equal footing?
After the targeting of a mosque in Southport last summer, the Government announced additional 'emergency' security funding for mosques to build on the existing £29 million fund in place last year, allocated to the standalone Protective Security for Mosques Scheme. But no 'emergency' funding announcement came forth when a Hindu temple in Leicester (and one in Birmingham) was targeted during the Hindu-Muslim disorder back in 2022. Standalone funding schemes dedicated to protecting places of worship exist for some religious groups, but not others.
Although the Government will continue to dismiss claims of 'two-tier' justice, in April it was forced to introduce emergency legislation to kibosh guidelines specifying preferential treatment for 'minority' communities to, 'prevent potential differential treatment arising from the Sentencing Council guidelines and avoid any unintended discrimination'. As I discovered, there are many examples of where identity politics and progressivist causes have trumped impartial policing. It is time to reinstate equality before the law for all citizens, regardless of their politics, religion or identity grouping.