In a significant intervention regarding the recent exchanges during Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs), Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr expressed serious concerns about the implications of comments made by political leaders regarding judicial independence. During a session in the House of Commons last Wednesday, the Labour leader, Sir Keir Starmer, alongside Conservative Minister Kemi Badenoch, scrutinised a judicial decision that permitted a Palestinian family to remain in the UK after they applied under a scheme originally designed for Ukrainian refugees.

Baroness Carr described herself as “deeply troubled” by the discussions that took place, which she contended were inappropriate. The decision to grant the family—the members of which have been granted anonymity—the right to stay had previously faced challenges in the courts; an appeal against the ruling was dismissed in September, but subsequently allowed by upper tribunal judges in January. While Sir Keir Starmer articulated that he believed the judicial decision was “wrong,” Ms Badenoch characterised it as “outrageous,” questioning the government’s response to whether an appeal against the ruling would be pursued.

Responding to Baroness Carr’s comments, Ms Badenoch emphasised that “Parliament is sovereign” and must engage in discussions about matters of public importance without hindrance. She asserted, “This doesn’t compromise the independence of the judiciary,” and highlighted the need for a thorough review of human rights legislation, which she deemed flawed.

Baroness Carr, in a statement to the media, reiterated that it is essential for the government to respect judicial independence. “It is for the government visibly to respect and protect the independence of the judiciary,” she commented, advocating for disagreements with judicial outcomes to be addressed through the appeals process rather than public outcry. Additionally, she noted in another instance that she had already communicated her concerns to the Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary, Shabana Mahmood.

Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp defended the right of politicians to comment on judicial decisions, especially those based on human rights law, which he argued have seen increasingly “bizarre” interpretations from judges. He stated, “Politicians are perfectly entitled to comment on decisions by judges,” reinforcing a perspective that spans across party lines regarding the balance between judicial authority and legislative oversight.

Baroness Carr’s remarks extended beyond individual cases. She articulated worries about what she believes to be a growing barrage of attacks on judges, asserting the unacceptability of personal criticisms directed at judicial officers merely for performing their roles. “Judges deserve better,” she stated, elaborating on the complications judges face in defending themselves against unfair criticism. She cited concerns related to judicial security as paramount, especially in the backdrop of public attacks, which she views as potentially endangering the safety of judges and their families.

These concerns appear particularly relevant in light of a violent incident last year where Judge Patrick Perusko was targeted in a courtroom setting—an incident Baroness Carr deemed “incredibly serious.” She highlighted the need for enhanced safeguarding measures for judges, drawing comparisons with Canada’s dedicated police unit for judicial protection as an example of proactive security.

The discussions and responses laid out in this ongoing dialogue highlight the tensions surrounding the interplay between the judiciary and government, particularly in the context of high-stakes immigration cases that have garnered public and political scrutiny. The government’s stance on these matters remains to be clarified, with further developments anticipated as the situation evolves.

Source: Noah Wire Services