Two-tier policing? We’re asking the wrong question
28.08.26 - Merseyside
Claims that recent cases highlight ‘two-tier’ policing are distracting from the bigger question, says Association of Police and Crime Commissioners Chair Emily Spurrell – how to build a police service that is trusted by everyone, and communities that are both safe and cohesive.
What happened to Henry Nowak was heartbreaking. His death raises serious and legitimate questions about how people are treated while in police custody. Those questions demand careful investigation, scrutiny, and accountability wherever it is needed.
Every person taken into police custody, regardless of who they are or what they are alleged to have done, is entitled to appropriate care, dignity and attention to their welfare. That is a fundamental principle of policing in a democratic society. When there are concerns that those standards may not have been met, the public is right to expect answers.
That is why it is important that the debate around Henry Nowak’s death remains focused on evidence rather than assumptions.
To use this tragedy as evidence of ‘two-tier policing’ risks distracting from the real issues and undermining the work still needed to make policing fairer for everyone.
The data on disparity
As police and crime commissioners, one of our key responsibilities is to scrutinise how individuals are treated in custody. Independent custody visitors (ICVs) play a vital role in shining a spotlight on custody conditions, and their work has driven significant improvements over many years. But it is equally clear that more remains to be done.
There are now investigations under way, and it would be wrong to prejudge the outcome. We should allow the evidence to determine what happened and what lessons must be learned.
What we should not do is exploit this tragedy to promote the narrative that policing is now biased against white communities or use it as justification to abandon efforts to improve policing for communities that have historically experienced discrimination.
That argument is not supported by the evidence. Where disparities do exist, the data points in a different direction. Time and again, national data has shown that Black people are disproportionately more likely to be stopped and searched – between 3.8 to nine times more likely depending on the region – and subjected to the use of force at a rate roughly three to five times higher than white people.
Those disparities are well documented and cannot simply be wished away because they are politically inconvenient.
At the same time, we are seeing increasing criticism of police engagement with LGBT+ communities, and the Baroness Casey Review of the Metropolitan Police in 2023 confirmed institutional homophobia and racism.
The fact that 22 police forces across England and Wales have publicly apologised for their historic treatment of LGBT+ people is recognition that this is another community that has historically experienced significant discrimination from policing. It reflects an understanding that trust cannot be rebuilt without acknowledging past mistakes.
None of this should be controversial. Like any large public institution, policing reflects the society in which it operates. It has made mistakes. It has learned lessons. It continues to evolve.
That is precisely why many of these communities are protected under equality legislation. Engagement with them is not an optional extra or a public relations exercise. It is an essential part of delivering fair, effective policing.
Fairness in practice
However, as a result of the recent legal ruling against Northumbria Police, police forces across the country have drastically withdrawn from supporting Pride events, and wider engagement with the LGBT+ community.
Taking positive action to improve relationships with communities that have experienced disadvantage is not about giving preferential treatment. It is about recognising historic and enduring inequalities and working to ensure everyone receives a fair service.
When policing builds trust with communities that have historically felt marginalised or over-policed, the benefits are felt more widely. Greater trust leads to better reporting of crime, stronger community intelligence, increased co-operation with investigations, and ultimately safer communities for everyone.
Treating people equally does not always mean treating everyone identically. We install ramps for wheelchair users. We provide interpreters for people who do not speak English. We use adaptive technology for employees who are deaf or blind.
We provide appropriate adults for vulnerable adults in custody, and we increasingly recognise the needs of neurodivergent people, developing approaches that help them navigate the criminal justice system more effectively.
These are not examples of unfairness. They are examples of fairness in practice. Equality is not about pretending everyone’s circumstances are the same. It is about recognising different needs so that everyone has an equal opportunity to access justice and receive appropriate support. The same principle applies to policing.
Indeed, inspectors have praised innovative approaches designed to better support vulnerable people in police custody and during investigations. This includes standardised screening tools to quickly identify mental health or care needs, on-site mental health practitioners and nurses working inside suites, and youth diversion schemes.
These initiatives recognise that understanding individual needs leads to better outcomes – not just for those individuals, but for policing itself.
If policing is to maintain public confidence, it cannot simply aspire to be ‘not racist’. It must actively work to identify and remove discrimination wherever it exists. That does not mean favouring one community over another. It means ensuring every community is protected from harm.
Hate crime remains crime. Racism remains racism. Homophobia, antisemitism, Islamophobia and other forms of prejudice continue to have real consequences for victims. It would be a dereliction of policing’s duty to ignore those harms, regardless of changes in public or political debate.
Fairly, consistently and without favour
Listening to one community does not mean ignoring another. We are capable of doing both.
We can demand answers about how people are treated in custody while continuing to tackle racial inequality. We can improve relationships with LGBT+ communities while ensuring rural communities, white working-class communities, and every other part of society receive the policing service they deserve. These are not competing priorities.
Policing depends on public consent. People must have confidence that the law is applied fairly, consistently and without favour. When members of the public question whether that is happening, those concerns should not be dismissed. They should be examined openly, transparently and honestly, following the evidence wherever it leads.
The real question is not whether policing has become ‘two-tier’. The real question is how we build policing that is trusted by everyone and communities that are both safe and cohesive.
That means seeking answers in cases like Henry Nowak’s, learning lessons where mistakes are found, and continuing the work of ensuring that every person – whatever their background – can have confidence that they will be treated fairly, with dignity and with respect.
* This article first appeared in Policing Insight on 25th August