The most senior judge in England and Wales has said she is “deeply troubled” by comments made during a clash between Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and Tory leader Kemi Badenoch over the role of a judge in an immigration case.
Badenoch raised the case of a Palestinian family who were given the right to live in the UK after they originally applied through a scheme designed for Ukrainians, saying it was “completely wrong”.
Sir Keir said he agreed, adding “it should be Parliament that makes the rules on immigration”.
But Lady Chief Justice Baroness Sue Carr said the remarks were “unacceptable” and conflicted with the duty of politicians to uphold the rule of law and respect the independent role of judges.
Speaking at her annual press conference, Baroness Carr also said that judges’ concerns about their personal security were at an “all-time high” thanks to attacks on social media driven by wider misreporting of their work.
The clash between Sir Keir and Badenoch came during Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs) last week, after Badenoch criticised how an immigration judge had handled the application of a Palestinian family who applied to live in the UK under a scheme designed for Ukrainians fleeing the war – a case that has been widely misreported.
Badenoch said: “A judge has now ruled in their favour. That is not what the scheme was designed to do.
“This decision is completely wrong, and cannot be allowed to stand. Are the government planning to appeal on any points of law, and, if so, which ones?”
The full reading of the judgement reveals that a family of six had sought permission to live with a British relative who was able to financially support them – and part of their case had been that they were political opponents of Hamas, which is banned in the UK under terrorism laws.
Their initial application had been incorrectly made using a form reserved to help Ukrainian families reunite – but they eventually won permission to stay from a judge under entirely separate general human rights considerations that allow families to reunite, particularly where they are at risk of harm.
This detail was not spelled out at PMQs, with Sir Keir saying the case had been one that had been dealt with under the Conservatives.
Replying to Badenoch, Sir Keir said: “Let me be clear: I do not agree with the decision. The leader of the opposition is right that it is the wrong decision.
“She has not quite done her homework, however, because the decision in question was taken under the last government, according to their legal framework.”
He went on: “It should be Parliament that makes the rules on immigration; it should be the government who make the policy. That is the principle. The home secretary is already looking at the legal loophole that we need to close in this particular case.”
The two Upper Tribunal judges, who granted the family permission to reunite in the UK, underlined that they were not creating a Palestinian settlement scheme but dealing with a complex and exceptional case. They had not been presented with any evidence from the government that this family’s unusual case would open “floodgates”.
Reflecting on the clash, Baroness Carr said on Monday that “both the question and the answer were unacceptable”.
“It is for the government visibly to respect and protect the independence of the judiciary,” she said. “Where parties, including the government, disagree with their findings, they should do so through the appellate process.”
She also said MPs, “just like the governing body, have a duty to respect the rule of law” – and that she had “written to the prime minister and the lord chancellor”.
The UK currently has schemes for some Afghans, Ukrainians and people from Hong Kong to come to the UK, but no route for Palestinians.
Making a wider point about the safety of judges, Baroness Carr said concerns about their personal security were at an “all-time high” thanks to misinformation and misreporting – often on social media.
“It is not acceptable for judges to be the subject of personal attacks for doing no more than their jobs,” she told reporters. “Their job is to find the facts on the evidence before them and apply the law as it stands to those facts.”
She continued: “If they get it wrong, the protection is a challenge on appeal. If the legislation is wrong, it is Parliament’s prerogative to legislate.”
“It is really dangerous to make any criticism of a judgment without a full understanding of the facts and the law,” the lady chief justice said – adding that judges are “public servants acting independently” and that, “frankly, judges deserve better”.
Leave a Reply