The Return of "Two-Tier Keir"

Keir Starmer passionately addresses the House of Commons, gesturing emphatically during a discussion.

Over the past two weeks, the debate around “two-tier justice” has resurfaced, following new sentencing guidance from the Sentencing Council for England and Wales. This independent body has proposed changes set to take effect on April 1st, reigniting claims that the justice system unfairly favours certain groups over others.

Where Did This “Two-Tier Justice” come from?

Criticism of so-called “two-tier justice” first gained traction after the race riots in Southport, when Elon Musk - no stranger to controversy - branded Prime Minister Keir Starmer with a less than affectionate rhyme calling him “Two-Tier Keir.” The accusation? That police treated white far-right “protesters” more harshly than minority groups. 

Now, similar claims are resurfacing with the new sentencing guidance which aims to reduce bias in sentencing by increasing the use of pre-sentence reports (PSRs); documents that help judges assess an offender’s background, motives, and circumstances before determining their sentence. Under the new rules, PSRs will now be expected to be necessary before punishing someone of an ethnic, cultural, or faith minority, alongside other groups such as young adults aged 18 to 25, women and pregnant women. There are exceptions based on circumstances, but critics argue this could lead to leniency for these groups while discriminating against white British offenders.

But does that argument hold up? 

Why did they update considerations for sentencing? 

This change builds on longstanding evidence of racial disparities in sentencing, highlighted in a number of reports like the famous Lammy Review and Macpherson Report, which document how Black, Asian and minority ethnic individuals often face harsher outcomes in the criminal justice system. It also aligns with the Sentencing Council’s own Equal Treatment Bench Book, which provides judges with historical and statistical context on systemic disparities and guidance on ensuring fair treatment.

Rather than creating a two-tier system, these updates attempt to correct an already inequitable one by ensuring judges have a fuller picture before making sentencing decisions.

Why the Backlash?

Opponents argue this is yet another example of institutional bias, just in the opposite direction. The European Conservative publication claims the policy means that “white, Christian, non-trans Britons” will face harsher sentences while minority offenders may receive more lenient community punishments or suspended sentences.

Conservative MP Andrew Snowden has been vocal in his opposition, warning:

“It will mean that the colour of your skin or the religion you have will give you leniency in the eyes of the law and will plunge public confidence in the judiciary into crisis.”

He and fellow Conservatives have tabled a bill to block the changes, calling on Prime Minister Starmer to overrule it.

A Reality Check for "Two-Tier Keir" Critics

But here’s the key point: The guidance does not mandate lighter sentences for minority groups. It simply encourages the use of PSRs to give judges more context, not a free pass.

As Lord Justice William Davis, Chairman of the Sentencing Council, explains:

“PSRs provide the court with information about the offender; they are not an indication of sentence. Sentences are decided by the independent judiciary, following sentencing guidelines and taking into account all the circumstances of the individual offence and the individual offender.”

Importantly, the guidance does not exclude white offenders from PSRs. It provides a non-exhaustive list of factors that may warrant a PSR, ensuring that any offender with a complex background can receive a fair assessment. 

This is included to make sentencing more effective to prevent reoffending. For example, research consistently shows that rehabilitative sentences, when appropriate, can reduce reoffending rates more effectively than short custodial sentences. So additional context that would be gathered on a potential offender for a PSR may be able to guide the passage of justice more accurately towards a more effective judgement and treatment. 

The argument that white, Christian, non-trans Britons will face disproportionately harsher punishments is anticipatory at best and misleading at worst. While scrutiny of how the policy is applied is fair, the scaremongering around “reverse racism” only fuels opposition to structural changes meant to promote fairness and equity.

The Politics of Fear

Despite this, fear-driven rhetoric is spreading fast. Reform UK MP Rupert Lowe’s viral tweet (2.9M views, 77K likes) captures the sentiment:

“Young white men must be looking at the country and thinking—what have we done wrong? What did we do to deserve this? The answer, lads, is NOTHING... The establishment now openly wants to give white men tougher sentences. Just because we’re white? Male? What message are we sending here?”

This narrative of “anti-white discrimination” taps into a broader political strategy, one that reframes efforts to make the UK more equitable as an attack on certain groups. It becomes an opportunity to weaponise victimhood to obstruct and obscure the facts and improvement. By casting structural changes as threats rather than means for progress, this approach stirs outcry, fuels resentment, and dismisses measures aimed at correcting systemic inequalities.

What Next?

As the April 1st implementation approaches, it’s crucial to separate fact from fearmongering. These changes don’t immediately create unfair leniency, they attempt to make justice more fair for those historically treated unfairly.

Yes, continued scrutiny is essential as this policy is applied in the future. But let’s not lose sight of the bigger picture: mitigating bias in sentencing isn’t about punishing one group over another, it’s about ensuring that the passage of justice is equitable for all.