Latest news with #twoTierJustice
Telegraph
05-07-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
Should we be concerned about multiple tiers of British justice?
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.
Telegraph
30-06-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
How it felt to watch Glastonbury as a member of the Jewish community
SIR – I don't think I have ever before felt so afraid for my future as a Jewish person living in Britain. The widely disseminated views and statements of acts at Glastonbury, the inability or unwillingness of the organisers to intervene and the broadcasting of it by the BBC tell you all you need to know about the lack of respect shown to my community. A criminal investigation has now been launched into Bob Vylan's performance. The outcome will shed light on the question of whether we live in a two-tier Britain. Gareth T L Kreike Bury, Lancashire SIR – I have not followed Lord Hermer's career closely, but I assume he must be a clever and learned person to have reached his present position. It is therefore surprising that he feels the accusations of two-tier justice in Britain are 'disgusting' and should be dismissed outright (report, June 28). He focuses on people who compare the policing of recent marches in London with that of the riots in the wake of the Southport murders. Yet there are surely comparisons to be made between the treatment of pro-Palestinian demonstrators and those supporting Israel ('Met threatens to charge man over Israeli flag', report, June 24), or sentencing for people talking about violence and those perpetrating it. Graeme Brierley Sutton Bridge, Lincolnshire SIR – The organisers of Glastonbury Festival say they are 'appalled' by the behaviour of one of their acts (report, June 30). Did they not foresee that their behaviour on stage might be designed to provoke? Stuart Geddes Monmouth SIR – At Glastonbury, the talentless 'Death to the IDF' singer of Bob Vylan also chanted the timeless lyrics: 'Heard you want your country back/[mimes crying] Shut the f--- up/You can't have that'. Who can claim that the culture wars don't exist? Daniel Dieppe Barnet, Hertfordshire SIR – Wes Streeting has told the Israelis to 'get their house in order' (report, June 30). This was his response to criticism from the Israeli embassy in light of the events at Glastonbury. What about the NHS? Recently, doctors from the Jewish Medical Association feared for their safety at the British Medical Association's annual conference (report, June 24). Around 10 per cent of the motions related to Gaza. If Jewish doctors feel unsafe with their colleagues, what does that mean for the safety of Jewish patients? Perhaps the Health Secretary should get his own house in order first. Dr Jonathan Simon Shoreham-by-Sea, West Sussex
Telegraph
28-06-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
Lord Hermer's denial of two-tier justice is a disgrace
This week, Lord Hermer was asked by the BBC about two-tier justice, the idea that the British state treats ethnic minorities more favourably than the white working class. This perception, so corrosive to faith in the rule of law, has become widespread since the crackdown on the Southport unrest last summer. Never one to read the public or political mood, Starmer's lawyer ally simply issued a blunt and contemptuous denial. Such claims are 'frankly disgusting', he said, and indeed 'offensive' to police, prosecutors and courts. He added that instead of criticising the British justice system, politicians 'need to get behind it, not seek to undermine it'. (Perhaps he should have a word with the justice secretary, Shabana Mahmood, who earlier this year had to intervene to block sentencing guidelines which she herself labelled 'two-tier'.) It's a woefully tone-deaf performance, suggesting that Hermer doesn't even understand why the Government's response to the Southport unrest gave rise to charges of unfairness. He argued that people were wrong to compare the policing of London Gaza marches, often awash with anti-Semitism but 'not producing violence', with the Southport unrest, since this saw attacks against police officers. No one would say violent rioters shouldn't be treated robustly. But what Hermer ignores is the way the state dealt fiercely with white, working-class Southport rioters in a way it never does with more favoured groups. Just weeks before, when rioters in ultra-diverse Harehills, Leeds, overturned a police car and set a bus on fire, the police reportedly ran away. Meanwhile, days into the Southport unrest, when armed Muslim mobs formed supposedly in order to protect their local communities, the police let them have free rein. In Birmingham on August 5, the result was a pub being attacked, with a man outside it suffering a lacerated liver, amid other disorder. Even more than this double-standard though, it is the punitive crackdown on online speech that has caused there were many who found themselves charged and remanded in custody for social media posts, the most high-profile is Lucy Connolly, imprisoned for 31 months for a single nasty tweet (which she later deleted) on the night of the Southport murders. As the Telegraph disclosed earlier this month, Lord Hermer personally approved the prosecution of Mrs Connolly for stirring up racial hatred, despite having the constitutional power not to. Hermer has also declined to seek to review lenient sentences for gang grooming offenders – but in his political judgement, it was in the public interest for Connolly to face up to seven years in prison over one nasty tweet. Former Attorney General Suella Braverman says she would not have consented to the charge. 'We don't have a two-tiered justice system', insists Hermer. We have an 'independent justice system'. But can anyone really look at the state response to Southport and claim it 'independent' from politics? Sir Keir Starmer politicised the justice system the moment he claimed all of those involved were 'far-Right thugs', who had come from out of town to cause chaos. In reality, subsequent analysis of the arrest data along with a recent report by the police inspectorate have poured cold water on those claims. Politicians were also swiftly claiming that online speech was a principal cause, with Hermer himself crowing that 'you cannot hide behind your keyboard'. This narrative was no less dubious – no one needed to be told by social media to be angry about the horrific murders of three children. Yet both became reasons for the police, the CPS and the courts to throw the book at people like Connolly over tweets. '[T]heir intention was always to hammer me', as Lucy told the Telegraph earlier this year. Lucy's two-tier treatment continues to this day. First, she was denied release on temporary license to care for her daughter and sick husband. This is a privilege which even murderers are sometimes granted, and which has been granted to others at Lucy's prison. Now she says she's being cruelly mistreated in prison. Does Hermer seriously think it's 'disgusting' to see this as unfair? Hermer can deny two-tier justice all he likes, but the more the public hears about cases like Connolly, the more the charge rings true. A recent YouGov poll found public confidence in the judicial system at an all-time low, with the proportion expressing 'no confidence at all' rising four per cent since last June. Berating people who feel these concerns will not make them go away.
Telegraph
27-06-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
Lord Hermer: Two-tier justice claims are disgusting
Lord Hermer has labelled allegations of two-tier justice in Britain 'disgusting'. The Attorney General said the criticism, which is widely used by Conservative and Reform politicians, is 'offensive' to police, prosecutors and judges 'applying the law'. Lord Hermer, who is the Government's chief legal adviser, said politicians using the phrase need to think about the 'dangers' they are posing to the UK's 'essential institutions'. Speaking to the BBC, Lord Hermer said: 'What some people were seeking to do – bringing up 'two-tier' – was to make a comparison with the way that people were being treated for trying to kill police officers – and I want to reiterate that kill police officers – with the response to protests on the streets of London. 'You can have views as to whether they're right protests or wrong protests, but they were not producing violence that you could even begin legitimately to compare to what was going on [during] the riots. 'That's where the two-tier comes from. It is frankly disgusting to start to draw those types of comparisons.' He added: 'I think it's offensive to our police. It's offensive to our crown prosecutors who are trying to apply the law in the best faith. It is offensive to the courts, where independent judges are applying the law to reach the right sentences. 'We don't have a two-tiered justice system. We have one justice system, that is an independent justice I think we all need to get behind it, not seek to undermine it.' Claims that the UK operates a two-tier justice system emerged in the wake of last summer's riots, which broke out after the Southport murders. Critics argued that some rioters were treated more harshly than other protesters, and that the Government's decision to use tough sentences to dissuade rioting was at odds with their early release policy for prisoners to tackle overcrowding in jails. Two-tier justice allegations have become one of the most highly charged arguments against Sir Keir Starmer from the Right. Nigel Farage told The Telegraph that Lord Hermer's comments about two-tier justice were wrong. The Reform UK leader cited the case of Lucy Connolly, the mother jailed for 31 months in 2024 for inciting racial hatred after the Southport murders, whose sentence has been highlighted as an example of 'two-tier' justice. 'The public have lost trust in our judicial system and in people like Lord Hermer. The Lucy Connolly case shows that the public are right. We are disgusted,' Mr Farage said. Richard Tice, the deputy Reform leader, who introduced a bill in Parliament this week to give the public the right to appeal 'unduly harsh' sentences, said: 'It is Hermer who is wrong and disgusting, for being so out of touch and in denial. 'He is the real danger to trust in our justice system.' However, it is not just Reform or Conservative politicians that have taken the judiciary to task for an apparent 'two tier' approach . Shabana Mahmood, the Justice Secretary, intervened to block guidance by the sentencing council giving special treatment to criminals from ethnic, religious and gender minorities. She said it would lead to unacceptable 'differential treatment before the law'. The Attorney General, who has been friends with the Prime Minister since they worked in the same chambers in 1996, has been dogged by controversy since taking up the post. As a leading human rights barrister, he was criticised for his former clients, caused a backlash with his legal advice from some colleagues and warned Sir Keir that supporting Israeli strikes on Iran would breach international law. He also claimed that calls for the UK to leave the European Convention on Human Rights echoed Nazi Germany, later apologising for the 'clumsy' remarks. 'Hermer defends those who hate Britain' Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary, urged Sir Keir to sack Lord Hermer, saying: 'Gerry Adams. Shamima Begum. Osama bin Laden's right-hand man. Lord Hermer has spent much of his life defending those who hate Britain.' Speaking on the BBC Radio 4 documentary Starmer's Stormy Year, Lord Hermer said he was 'untroubled' by criticism of his work as a barrister before entering politics. 'The attacks on me are based on the fact that I represented some clients – obviously over 30 years, I represented thousands of clients. But the attacks are [that] I represented some individuals with reprehensible political views,' he said. 'It's a bit like attacking a journalist for the person that they're interviewing or a doctor for the nature of their patient. Lawyers are professionally obliged to represent those who come to them for cases. 'You can't say no because you don't like someone's politics. The whole justice system falls apart if you do that. It's really important. So on a kind of political level, I am untroubled by attacks on that.' He added: 'Frankly, it tickles most of my family and friends that I'm being portrayed as some huge lefty, because that's not who I am. I'm progressive, and I'm deeply pragmatic in my politics.'
Telegraph
12-06-2025
- Entertainment
- Telegraph
Laurence Fox wears ‘two tier' cap to court
Laurence Fox wore a 'two tier' cap as he arrived at court over a sexual offence. The former actor, 47, is accused of sharing a compromising photo on social media of TV presenter Narinder Kaur, who regularly appears on Good Morning Britain. The cap was Fox's second apparent reference during his trial to 'two-tier justice' – the claim that the criminal justice system treats different groups of people differently. He had arrived at court in April with a cap that read 'two-tier Britain'. He appeared at Woolwich Crown Court charged with two counts under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, while Ms Kaur, who has waived her right to anonymity, sat in the public gallery. The former actor is accused of sharing a photograph of a person's genitals 'intending that the person or another person would see the genitals, and for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification, and being reckless as to whether that person would be caused alarm, distress or humiliation' in the first count. The second count alleges he shared a photograph which showed, or appeared to show, 'another person in an intimate state, with the intention of causing that person alarm, distress or humiliation'. Fox not asked to enter any pleas The court hearing on Thursday was listed for plea and trial preparation. However, Fox, wearing a white shirt and grey blazer with jeans, was not asked to enter any pleas. A provisional trial, estimated to last four days, was set for Dec 6 2027 at the same court, with Fox granted bail to appear for a further case management hearing on Nov 14 this year. Sarah Forshaw KC, defending, asked the court if it would be possible to look at whether other venues may be able to accommodate an earlier trial because 'December 2027 is a long way ahead'. The police previously said Fox had been 'charged with an offence contrary to section 66A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003' which 'relates to an image that was posted on a social media platform in April 2024'. Section 66A of the Sexual Offences Act relates to 'cyber flashing'. The charge, introduced in 2023, makes it a criminal offence to intentionally share a sexual image of someone without consent, with the aim of causing alarm, distress, humiliation or for sexual gratification. Upskirting, which involves taking pictures of people under their clothes without their permission, became a specific criminal offence in 2019. Offenders can face up to two years in jail and be placed on the sex offenders register.
