Kemi Badenoch has rejected concerns raised by the Lady Chief Justice regarding last week’s Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs), where the legality of an immigration tribunal decision was publicly criticised. The Conservative Party has insisted that the exchange did not undermine judicial independence.
Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr expressed that she was “deeply troubled” by the session in which Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and Conservative leader Badenoch criticised a ruling that allowed a Palestinian family to remain in Britain under a scheme intended for Ukrainian refugees.
Badenoch: “Parliament is sovereign”
Responding to Baroness Carr’s rare intervention, Badenoch maintained that politicians must be free to debate matters of “crucial public importance” and that parliamentary sovereignty remains paramount.
“This doesn’t compromise the independence of the judiciary,” Badenoch stated. “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.”
She further argued that the issue was not merely a legal “loophole” but a sign of deeper flaws in the UK’s human rights legislation.
Baroness carr: PMQs comments were “unacceptable”
The Lady Chief Justice said that both Starmer’s remarks and Badenoch’s challenge during PMQs were inappropriate. She reiterated that the judiciary must be visibly respected and protected, and that disputes over legal rulings should be resolved through the appellate system rather than political debate.
“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,” she told reporters. “Both question and 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.”
Baroness Carr also confirmed she had written to the Lord Chancellor, Shabana Mahmood, about the issue.
Tory defence: Judges’ decisions can be scrutinised
Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp defended the right of politicians to comment on judicial decisions, particularly in human rights cases.
“Politicians are perfectly entitled to comment on decisions by judges,” he stated. “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 case in question involved a Palestinian family of six—two parents and their four children—who were displaced when their home in Gaza was destroyed during the Israel-Hamas conflict. They sought entry to the UK under the Ukraine Family Scheme to join the father’s British citizen brother. Their application was initially refused in May 2023, and a first-tier immigration tribunal upheld the rejection. However, upper tribunal judges ruled in January 2024 that the family should be allowed to stay.
During PMQs, Badenoch pressed Starmer on the case, accusing him of failing to take control of immigration policy. Starmer responded:
“I do not agree with the decision. She’s right, it’s the wrong decision. She hasn’t quite done her homework because the decision in question was taken under the last government according to the legal framework for the last government.
“But let me be clear, it should be Parliament that makes the rules on immigration. It should be the government that makes the policy, that is the principle, and the Home Secretary is already looking at the legal loophole which we need to close in this particular case.”
Concerns over judicial independence and security
Beyond the PMQs controversy, Baroness Carr raised broader concerns about mounting attacks on judges.
“It is not acceptable for judges to be the subject of personal attacks for doing no more than their jobs—finding facts based on evidence and applying the law as it stands,” she said.
She added that if judicial rulings are flawed, the appellate system is the correct mechanism for correction, while changes to laws should be a matter for Parliament.
More Read
Baroness Carr also highlighted increasing security threats to judges, referencing an attack on Judge Patrick Perusko in late 2023 when a radiator was thrown at him inside Milton Keynes Family Court.
She noted that Canada has a dedicated police unit focused on judicial security and suggested the UK might need similar protections.
Government stands by PM’s comments
A government spokesperson defended Starmer’s remarks, reaffirming the Prime Minister’s commitment to upholding judicial independence.
“The Prime Minister has made clear that it is for Parliament to make the laws and for the Government to decide policy,” the statement read.
“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.
“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.”
While the row continues, the issue raises deeper questions about the boundaries between political debate and judicial independence, as well as the balance of power between Parliament and the courts in shaping immigration policy.
