LONDON: The most senior judge in England and Wales has described as “unacceptable” comments by Prime Minister Keir Starmer and opposition leader Kemi Badenoch about a Palestinian family being given asylum in Britain.
Lady Chief Justice Baroness Sue Carr said she was “deeply troubled” after both leaders denounced a decision to take in the family from Gaza under a scheme originally set up for Ukrainian refugees.
At a press conference, Carr added that fears among the judiciary for their safety in the UK is at an “all-time high,” and it is not for politicians to question judges’ decisions made in accordance with the law.
The family of six, who are political opponents of Hamas, planned to stay in the country with a British relative who could provide shelter and financial support.
The two tribunal judges adjudicating the case made clear that their decision would not set a precedent for a Palestinian resettlement scheme in the UK.
However, the case was raised by Badenoch in Parliament last week, saying the decision to allow the family asylum in the UK is “completely wrong and can’t be allowed to stand.”
Starmer replied: “I don’t agree with the decision. The leader of the opposition is right that it’s the wrong decision.
“She hasn’t quite done her homework, however, because the decision in question was taken under the last government, according to their legal framework.”
He added: “It should be Parliament that makes the rules on immigration. It should be the government who make the policy. That’s the principle.
“The home secretary is already looking at the legal loophole that we need to close in this particular case.”
Carr said she had written to Starmer to express her feelings that “both the question and the answer were unacceptable.”
She added: “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.”
Carr said: “It is not acceptable for judges to be the subject of personal attacks for doing no more than their jobs.
“Their job is to find the facts on the evidence before them and apply the law as it stands to those facts.”
She added: “If they get it wrong, the protection is a challenge on appeal. If the legislation is wrong, it is Parliament’s prerogative to legislate.
“It is really dangerous to make any criticism of a judgment without a full understanding of the facts and the law.”
