Think

PM in public row with judge over migrants

19 February 202510 views0

In a rare public intervention, England and Wales’s most senior judge, Lady Chief Justice Baroness Sue Carr, has expressed deep concern over recent parliamentary discussions regarding a controversial immigration ruling. The case in question involves a Palestinian family from Gaza who were granted the right to reside in the UK under a scheme originally designed for Ukrainian refugees.

During a Prime Minister’s Questions session last week, Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch described the tribunal’s decision as “completely wrong.” Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer concurred, stating, “I do not agree with the decision… it’s the wrong decision.” He further emphasized that “it should be Parliament that makes the rules on immigration,” and indicated that the Home Secretary is examining the legal “loophole” that permitted this outcome.

Baroness Carr responded by stating she was “deeply troubled” by the exchange, asserting that both the question and the answer were “unacceptable.” She emphasized the importance of governmental respect for judicial independence, noting that disagreements with court findings should be addressed through the appellate process.

In defense of the parliamentary discourse, Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp remarked that politicians are “perfectly entitled to comment on decisions by judges,” especially in cases involving human rights where judicial interpretations can be expansive.

The Palestinian family at the center of this debate consists of parents and their four children, aged between seven and 18. Their home in Gaza was destroyed during the Israel-Hamas conflict, leading them to seek refuge with the father’s brother, a British citizen residing in the UK. They applied for entry under the Ukraine Family Scheme, which was initially denied by the Home Office. However, upon appeal, an upper tribunal judge granted them the right to enter the UK, citing their right to family life under the European Convention on Human Rights.

This incident has ignited a broader debate about the boundaries of political commentary on judicial decisions and the principle of judicial independence. While the judiciary underscores the necessity of maintaining its autonomy, political figures argue for the right to critique judicial rulings, especially when they pertain to significant public interest and policy.

Right-leaning papers, who have largely expressed anti-Palestine sentiment, were quick to point out the Tory stance against immigration to avoid outright defending Starmer, while left-leaning papers were more sensitive to the debate.

Unless otherwise linked, headlines are from papers on 19/02/2025

After Kemi and Starmer attacked immigration decision that let Gaza family remain in Britain:
Tory anger at judge who said criticising our ruling was ‘unacceptable’

Daily Mail