Robert Jenrick lists 30 ‘activist judges’ he vows to axe | UK | News

Robert Jenrick will make a pledge on Tuesday to boot “activist” judges as part of a major crackdown on “pro-immigration bias” lurking in the judiciary.

The Shadow Justice Secretary named more than 30 full-time and part-time judges who he claimed had previously volunteered or provided free legal services for open border organisations. He explained that some have posted comments supporting open borders on social media since taking judicial positions.

Speaking before his address to the Conservative Party Conference in Manchester, Jenrick claimed the case was exposed to a “secret network” in which “activist judges are subverting the independence of the judiciary”. The news comes as Jenrick is set to make the decision on the Tory-Reform Pact at the next election.

Plans radical overhaul of judicial system

He will announce that a future Tory government will push for reforms that would allow judges to campaign for open borders to be automatically dismissed, and return responsibility for appointing judges to the government through the Lord Chancellor.

He will also announce that a judicial interest register will be established and, following debate on the Prisoner Council’s “two-tier justice” guidelines, powers will also be shifted to the Lord Chancellor.

Mr Jenrick told the Telegraph: “While we have some of the best barristers, barristers and judges in the world, there is no doubt that deep rot has now infected parts of our judiciary.

“This will come as little surprise to the public who have been subjected to absurd immigration decisions that work against their interests and put their security at risk. We will simply restore confidence in the independence of the judiciary through wholesale changes to the way it operates.”

“Leaving the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) is an important first step. But there is no point in keeping activist judges stuck with just their friends. We need root and branch changes. Tinkering is not enough – we need to fundamentally change how judges are appointed and removed.”

Plans come back to ministers

Under their proposals, the body currently responsible for appointing judges, the Judicial Appointments Commission, would be abolished, with responsibility sent back to the Lord Chancellor, supported by a new judicial veterinary committee.

The existing Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO) will be reformed to give it powers to investigate “inappropriate” conduct by judges, including a new duty to remove anything engaging in “political activism”.

It also announced it would establish a judicial interest register for MPs and Lords, similar to Parliament’s Register of MPs and Lords, which would require all part-time judges to be named to record any potential conflicts of interest, prohibit the use of judicial status for commercial gain and provide greater transparency.

Asylum appeals soar as migrants topple home office

Its announcement comes amid a doubling in the number of appeals from asylum seekers to more than 50,000, with nearly half of migrants initially rejected by the home office – often using ASHR, saying their handling would jeopardize their human rights. An average of 180 foreign criminals per year are allowed to stay after appealing on such grounds.

Both the Tories and Reform have committed to leaving the ECHR to make it easier to deport illegal immigrants, while Labor plans to block the way courts enforce the treaty to increase removals, but has rejected calls to quit or leave the meeting.

Mr Jenrick’s research identified 35 judges who recommended or mobilized before becoming judges for pro-immigrant groups such as immigration detainees (BID), which campaigned against the Tories’ Rwanda Programme.

Judges notified via social media posts

Mr Jenrick said he had reported 11 full- or part-time judges to the JCIO to investigate whether they had breached social media guidelines with allegedly “activist” content they had posted online.

He said: “It is time for transparency and reform so that the public can trust that judges are truly independent. If judges want to step into the political arena, they should pursue political office.”

Mr Jenrick referred to cases of sitting judges who publicly supported the court defeat of the Rwanda Program on social media or supported legal services companies with which they were associated.

Under Mr Jenrick’s reforms, a judicial veterinary committee will advise the Lord Chancellor on the impartiality of proposed judges. The vocal JCIO would have the power to fire junior judges, such as those sitting on the Immigration Court.

Parliament may come to power to bag senior judges

For more senior judges, the JCIO would have the power to recommend to the Lord Chancellor that a censure motion be taken in Parliament. Parliament would have the ultimate power to expel these judges.

Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr criticized the “increasing and increasingly unacceptable sensationalist and false abuse” of judges, which has resulted in some “serious threats and intimidation both inside and outside the courtroom, both online and in the physical world”.

Judicial chiefs return to attacks

A judicial office spokesman said: “Judicial independence and impartiality are fundamental to the rule of law. Once appointed, judges take the judicial oath, in which they swear to act ‘without fear or favour, love or ill will. In all cases, judges make decisions based on the evidence and arguments presented to them.

“Judges may be called upon to rule on politically charged matters, but this does not mean that they act politically in providing their decisions. They apply the law as it stands and as determined by Parliament. It is not a matter for the judiciary to change the law.

“Judges in immigration courts come from all backgrounds, including government attorneys, and it is common for them to have previously acted on both sides of cases.

Labor accuses Jenrick of putting judges at risk

A labor source said: “Robert Jenrick must know that attacking judges in this way puts them at risk. No institution is beyond accountability, but we should be proud of our independent judiciary, which ensures day-to-day protections for working-class people in Britain.”

“Judges can only rule on the law, no more, no less. Jenrick either doesn’t know that, which would be a worry for a shadow justice secretary, or he does – and clearly doesn’t care about the impact of his divisive rhetoric.”