Photo credit: www.theguardian.com
Judiciary Independence Under Scrutiny in UK Politics
The separation of the judiciary from other branches of government remains a relatively recent feature of the UK’s constitutional framework. The establishment of the supreme court in 2009 marked a significant point in this evolution, yet respect for the judiciary’s independence has not fully permeated political discourse.
This week, Lady Carr, the chief justice of the supreme court, took a firm stance against remarks made by Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch regarding a court ruling involving a family of refugees from Gaza. Earlier this year, an immigration tribunal acknowledged the family’s right to settle in the UK under the European Convention on Human Rights, overturning a prior decision that denied them asylum. In response to this ruling, Badenoch expressed her disagreement, and Starmer echoed her sentiments, suggesting that the decision should be disregarded and that measures would be taken to close what he termed a “legal loophole.”
Lady Carr characterized both the inquiry and the response as “unacceptable,” emphasizing that judicial decisions should not be publicly criticized from the political platform. If government officials take issue with a ruling, the appropriate course is to pursue an appeal, which is the established process within the legal system.
Starmer, a former barrister with a strong grounding in human rights law, is well aware of these principles. Historically, he has advocated for the importance of maintaining the integrity of the judicial system, but recent comments suggest a shift that warrants concern.
Conversely, Badenoch’s statements reflect a growing trend among Conservative politicians expressing disdain for judicial independence. This movement has roots in the party’s reactions to court decisions related to Brexit, notably when the supreme court invalidated Boris Johnson’s unlawful suspension of Parliament in 2019. Subsequent administrations, including Johnson’s, directed their frustrations toward judicial rulings that obstructed proposed deportations of asylum seekers to Rwanda, resulting in legislative initiatives that controversially declared Rwanda a lawful destination for refugees.
While Starmer has pledged to repeal the contentious legislation concerning Rwanda, the recent exchanges in Parliament indicate a troubling similarity to past governmental attitudes that undermined judicial integrity and criticized legal rulings as “loopholes.”
Additionally, criticism directed toward Lord Hermer, the attorney general, by Conservative media outlets for his previous work as a barrister further illustrates the contentious atmosphere surrounding judicial matters. Allegations against him lack substantial evidence and primarily suggest a supposed liberal bias intertwined with claims of conflicts of interest. This narrative is fueled by whispers within Labour suggesting that the attorney general’s commitment to lawful governance hinders proactive government initiatives.
The tendency to prioritize executive desires over legal standards poses significant risks to democratic principles. This phenomenon can be seen in the actions of figures like Donald Trump, who openly challenges constitutional safeguards. Some political factions in the UK, especially within the Conservative party, seem to mirror this disregard for judicial independence, highlighting the urgent need for Labour and Starmer to firmly uphold the rule of law.
Source
www.theguardian.com