Kemi Badenoch breaks silence as row over controversial immigration case | Politics | News | EUROtoday

Britain’s high choose sparked widespread fury after interfering within the row over a vastly controversial immigration case.

Lady Chief Justice, Baroness Sue Carr, condemned Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and Tory chief Kemi Badenoch for discussing the case of a Palestinian household who utilized to return to the UK on a scheme designed for Ukrainian refugees.

Baroness Carr branded the conflict, at Prime Minister’s Questions final week, “unacceptable” and mentioned she was “deeply troubled to learn of the exchanges”.

But Mrs Badenoch hit again on Tuesday, declaring politicians should be capable to “discuss matters of crucial public importance” – together with controversial selections by judges.

The Conservative chief mentioned: “Parliament is sovereign.

“Politicians must be able to discuss matters of crucial public importance in Parliament.

“This doesn’t compromise the independence of the judiciary.

“The decision to allow a family from Gaza to come to the UK was outrageous for many reasons.

“The Prime Minister couldn’t even tell me whether the Government would appeal the decision. He pretended he was looking at closing a legal ‘loophole’.

“This is not just some legal loophole that can be closed, but requires a fundamental overhaul of our flawed human rights laws.”

Shadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick added: “The rule of law does not prevent politicians – or indeed any other citizen – from publicly disagreeing with a judge’s decision.

“Particularly when, as here, the judge displayed clear overreach by removing limits elected politicians had imposed on our immigration system – turning a Ukraine only scheme into one for the whole world.

“If judges step into the political arena they can expect a political response.

“You can explain why you think a decision is wrong, and why it should be appealed, while respecting the rule of law by accepting the decision is binding unless successfully appealed.

“The principle of the rule of law is being misused. It needs to be reclaimed. It does not, and never has meant, rule by lawyers.”

The Palestinian household, who’ve been granted anonymity, had an enchantment in opposition to the choice dismissed by a first-tier immigration tribunal choose in September however an additional enchantment was allowed by higher tribunal judges in January.

Sir Keir mentioned the choice was mistaken, including that Home Secretary Yvette Cooper was working to shut the “loophole”.

But Baroness Carr advised reporters: “I think it started from a question from the Opposition suggesting that the decision in a certain case was wrong, and obviously the Prime Minister’s response to that.

“Both the query and the reply had been unacceptable.

“It is for the Government to respect and protect the independence of the judiciary.

“Where events, together with the Government, disagree with their findings, they need to accomplish that by the appellate course of.”

Baroness Carr has written to Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood about her concerns.

Responding to Baroness Carr’s comments, shadow home secretary Chris Philp said politicians are “completely entitled to touch upon selections by judges”.

He added: “This is particularly the case with human rights-based circumstances, the place judges have adopted more and more weird and expansive interpretations of vaguely worded ECHR clauses.”

The family of six at the heart of the case brought up in the Commons – comprising a mother and father and their four children who were aged 18, 17, eight and seven in September – were displaced when their home in the Gaza Strip was destroyed by an air strike in the Israel-Hamas war.

They applied for entry to the UK using the Ukraine Family Scheme to join the father’s brother, who has lived in the UK since 2007 and is a British citizen, but this was refused in May last year after the Home Office concluded the requirements of the scheme had not been met.

The family’s claim was initially rejected by an immigration tribunal on the grounds it was outside the Ukraine programme’s rules.

An upper tribunal judge then allowed the family to come to the UK on the basis of their right to a family life under article 8 of the European convention on human rights (ECHR).

He said the youngest children, now seven and nine, were “at a high risk of death or serious injury on a daily basis” and that it was “overwhelmingly” in their best interests to be in a safer environment with their parents and siblings.

Baroness Carr also revealed she has set up a new security taskforce, headed by Mrs Justice Yip, a senior High Court judge, to review judicial and court security.

She added that she had been looking at other arrangements in other countries, such as Canada, where judges have a dedicated police unit.

She said: “It is not acceptable for judges to be the subject of personal attacks for doing no more than their jobs, their jobs, to find the facts on the evidence before them and apply the law as it stands, to those facts.

“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 judgment is the only accurate source of information.

“A directly related issue is security. Concerns over judicial security are at an all-time high. Unfair or sensational negative reporting creates real everyday risks to the safety and lives of judges and their families.

“I am, as you know, fully committed to open justice and transparency in the justice system. I would hate to see the drive for transparency compromised or threatened through inaccurate reporting and unfair public comment.”

Richard Ekins KC (Hon), Head of the Judicial Power Project at Policy Exchange: “This is a very ill-advised intervention by the Lady Chief Justice. There was nothing in the least constitutionally improper in the recent exchange between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition.

“Parliamentarians, including Ministers, are free to disagree with judgments and to say as much.

“Neither judicial independence nor the rule of law entitle judges to be free from criticism and the Lady Chief Justice is wrong to attempt to suppress criticism.”