Politicians 'must be able to question judicial decisions,' Priti Patel tells LBC amid row over 'activist judges'

20 February 2025, 09:06

Priti Patel tells LBC politicians must be able to criticise activist judges

By EJ Ward

Former Home Secretary Dame Priti Patel has insisted that politicians must be able to hold judicial power to account, as she defended the right of MPs to challenge judicial decisions.

Speaking to LBC's Nick Ferrari at Breakfast, Dame Priti said: "Elected politicians must have the right to speak openly and effectively put truth to power in this context as well."

She recalled her efforts to reform immigration courts and tribunals during her tenure. "I spent time with a former Lord Chief Justice to actually reform the immigration courts and tribunals through an act of Parliament which became the Nationality and Borders Act," she said.

"Had this act passed in full, it would have dealt with these issues about how the judiciary, the courts and tribunals effectively come up with some of the most extraordinary decisions."

Her comments come amid a growing row over judicial independence after England and Wales' most senior judge raised concerns about last week's Prime Minister's Questions.

Read more: Senior Tories blast 'out of touch' judge for 'ludicrous attack' on Starmer’s migrant remarks

Read more: Are activist judges undermining Parliament? A growing case for legal reform

‘Deeply troubled’ judge writes to Starmer over immigration tribunal PMQ exchange

Baroness Carr, the Lady Chief Justice, said she was "deeply troubled" by remarks made in the Commons, in which both Sir Keir Starmer and Kemi Badenoch criticised a judge's ruling on an immigration case.

The ruling allowed a Palestinian family to remain in the UK under a scheme originally designed for Ukrainian refugees – a decision that both the Prime Minister and the Conservative leader described as "wrong."

Responding to Baroness Carr’s rare public intervention, Ms Badenoch asserted that "Parliament is sovereign" and that politicians must be able to discuss issues of "crucial public importance."

"This doesn't compromise the independence of the judiciary," she said. "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."

During PMQs, Sir Keir had stated that Home Secretary Yvette Cooper was "working on closing this loophole" after the Tory leader challenged him on the tribunal's ruling, which she described as "completely wrong."

Baroness Carr told reporters on Tuesday: "Both the question and the answer were unacceptable. It is for the government visibly to respect and protect the independence of the judiciary. Where parties, including the government, disagree with their findings, they should do so through the appellate process."

The judge has also written to the Lord Chancellor, Shabana Mahmood, raising her concerns.

Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp also defended the right of MPs to critique judicial decisions, particularly those related to human rights law. "Politicians are perfectly entitled to comment on decisions by judges," he said. "This is especially the case with human rights-based cases, where judges have adopted increasingly bizarre and expansive interpretations of vaguely worded ECHR clauses."

The Palestinian family at the centre of the case consists of a mother, father, and four children, aged between seven and 18. They were displaced after their home in Gaza was destroyed in the Israel-Hamas war. They applied to enter the UK through the Ukraine Family Scheme to join the father’s brother, a British citizen, but the Home Office rejected the application in May 2023 on the grounds that they did not meet the scheme’s criteria.

Their appeal was initially dismissed by a first-tier immigration tribunal but was later overturned by upper tribunal judges in January.

Baroness Carr also raised concerns about a "mounting campaign of attacks on judges" and the growing security threats faced by members of the judiciary. She warned that unfair or sensationalist reporting creates "real everyday risks to the safety of judges and their families."

The Lady Chief Justice pointed to an "incredibly serious attack" on Judge Patrick Perusko in late 2023, when a radiator was thrown at him in Milton Keynes Family Court. She also noted that the UK may need to consider adopting measures similar to Canada, where a dedicated police unit focuses on judicial security.

A Government spokesperson defended the Prime Minister’s position, saying: "The Prime Minister has made clear that it is for Parliament to make the laws and for the Government to decide policy. Where the law is not working as we think it should be, the Government will take action to tighten up the rules – and that is what we are doing."

They added: "As a former chief prosecutor, the Prime Minister’s respect for the judiciary, the role they play in our democracy and the rule of law is beyond question."