Richard Tice: Can the UK Learn from Dubai’s Low Crime Model?

A Criminal Defence Lawyer’s Perspective on Reform UK’s Crime Policy Proposals

Tice’s Dubai Comparison: A Controversial Benchmark

Reform UK’s deputy leader, Richard Tice, isn’t one to shy from controversial “hot-takes” and he has once again sparked debate by suggesting the UK could draw inspiration from Dubai’s approach to crime and national pride.

In a BBC interview, Tice praised Dubai’s low crime rates and apparent public trust, claiming people can safely leave personal belongings unattended — a stark contrast to the UK’s current crime levels.

Understanding the Context Behind Tice’s Comments

Tice, who frequently travels to the UAE, says the UK should embrace practices like daily national anthems in schools to instil a sense of civic pride. He argues that British values are currently failing and that law enforcement is too lenient — a sentiment that resonated with many voters during the recent local elections.

For the Argument: What Defence Lawyers Might Acknowledge

From a criminal defence standpoint, Tice’s call to restore public confidence in law and order has merit. There is a growing frustration among the public regarding rising crime and perceived inefficiencies in the justice system.

Defence lawyers regularly see the strain on courts, the overwhelmed prison system, and the inner workings of the criminal justice system. 

A stricter, more visible deterrence model — such as Dubai’s — could, in theory, reduce repeat offences – and even act as a deterrent for people committing crime in the first place. Public safety and respect for law are legitimate goals, and instilling national pride may foster a stronger sense of collective responsibility.

Against the Argument: Concerns Over Authoritarian Comparisons

However, criminal defence practitioners must also raise serious concerns about using Dubai as a model. The UAE’s legal system is authoritarian, lacking many civil liberties expected in the UK.

According to Amnesty International, the UAE imprisons political dissenters and ranks poorly for civil freedoms. These conditions are incompatible with the British legal principle of due process and human rights.

Similarly, strict authoritarian approaches can lead to ruling by fear – with stricter sentences placing a huge strain on an already creaking prison-system. 

Moreover, suggestions that foreign nationals are solely responsible for overcrowded prisons risk inflaming xenophobia. The rule of law should be blind to nationality, and policy must be grounded in evidence, not populist rhetoric.

A more Authoritarian legal system could also lead to arguments for bringing back the death penalty in certain cases. However, as we have seen once again this week – with another high-profile case this week involving the release of falsely-convicted Peter Sullivan, having spent 38 years in prison for a crime he didn’t commit – the death penalty comes with legitimate concerns. 

Justice vs. Control: The Balance at Stake

While Tice calls for a crackdown on crime, any legal reform must protect individual liberties and ensure fair trials.

Defence lawyers know that harsh environments do not automatically lead to lower crime rates — they can instead breed resentment, fear, and miscarriages of justice.

True reform requires investment in rehabilitation, legal aid, and community-based prevention strategies — not just admiration for a system where dissent is criminalised.

Conclusion: Reform or Regression?

Tice’s remarks tap into real anxieties, but the path forward for UK justice should not compromise democratic values.

At the core of any reform is that a balance must be struck between safety and freedom — and that balance is where the voice of the criminal defence lawyer becomes critical.

Reform should mean fairness, proportionality, and humanity in law — not the importation of authoritarian discipline disguised as order – because it is a populist viewpoint based on half-truths and misconceptions.