Judges who bring their personal politics to court should be removed, insists shadow justice secretary Robert Jenrick
Tighter pre-appointment checks for those with partisan views are needed, the MP for Newark, Nottinghamshire, said.
He also called for a system for their removal if any political meddling is discovered.
Mr Jenrick said: 'If judges want to enter the political sphere themselves, then they should stop being judges and go into politics.
'We have to have a situation where judges who act politically and bring their own personal politics into their job as a judge are held to account and frankly, can be removed.'
The shadow Lord Chancellor said he has previously exposed judges for tweeting what he called 'highly political, partisan messages'.
Meanwhile, he added, others have acted as trustees of 'highly partisan' charities.
'I think that is bringing the historic independence of our judiciary into serious disrepute and we've got to change that,' he concluded.
Removing senior judges is no easy task, requiring a vote in both the Commons and the Lords.
In lower courts, meanwhile, there needs to be an investigation into any reported wrongdoing, ending in a recommendation of removal.
Mr Jenrick noted UK judges remain highly respectable in some areas of the legal system, like the commercial courts.
But he felt they had not remained independent in others, particularly noting immigration tribunals.
He emphasised a judge's role is simply to uphold law made by Parliament.
The shadow minister said it was pointless to leave behind 'activist judges' in the European courts after Brexit if the UK simply has the same problems with this at home.
Judges are currently selected by the independent Judicial Appointments Commission, introduced in 2005 by then prime minister Tony Blair.
But Mr Jenrick - shadow Lord Chancellor since November last year - believes this is not working and is exploring returning this responsibility to the Lord Chancellor.
This approach, in place before Mr Blair's 2005 Constitutional Reform Act, has been previously criticised by many as unfair and politicised.
Elsewhere in his interview with The Telegraph, Mr Jenrick said he wanted 'every single illegal migrant in this country' deported.
The former immigration minister - from October 2022 to December 2023 - said this included those arriving on small boats and lorries, as well as people who claim asylum after landing at airports.
He resigned from his position in then-PM Rishi Sunak's Cabinet after urging for a reinforced Rwanda deportation policy.
The shadow minister still believes similar schemes are a key part of a successful approach to dealing with migration.
He also suggested if the Tories were to enter government at the next election in 2029, he would round up and deport anyone who came to the UK without permission under Labour who has not been granted asylum.
Mr Jenrick praised US president Donald Trump, who he backed during last year's election, for his approach to immigration on the country's southern border.
He said it showed a crackdown on illegal arrivals can have a swift impact.
The Conservative insisted it was not his rhetoric that is causing a culture war - but the UK's inadequate approach to migration, saying the country wants decisive action.
Earlier this week, the BBC apologised to Mr Jenrick after a refugee charity boss suggested on air the shadow justice secretary is xenophobic.
On Radio 4's Today programme on Wednesday, Krish Kandiah, a director of Sanctuary Foundation, claimed the shadow minister had increased 'fear of the stranger' in the UK.
Mr Jenrick accused the broadcaster of smearing 'millions of worried citizens as 'xenophobic' for their completely understandable fears'.
It comes after the shadow minister's trip to Calais earlier this month to witness small boats setting off for England, footage of which he posted on social media.
The Conservative MP lost the party leadership race last summer to Kemi Badenoch, after making it to the final two candidates.
Central to his campaign was the notion of removing the UK from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) as the way to deal with small boat arrivals.
This would make it harder to anyone who arrives in Britain illegally to appeal deportation for family reasons, he argued.
Ms Badenoch dismissed this approach during the race as not well thought out - but now looks set to take it at the party conference in the autumn.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
10 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Chancellor is forced to correct string of gaffes
Rachel Reeves has been forced to correct the official record after she got her facts about a flagship pension reform wrong, underestimated the unemployment rate and confused the name of a Northern town earmarked for a major tram network extension. The Chancellor, who has previously had to amend her profile on social networking site LinkedIn after overstating her qualifications as an economist, made the string of errors at a recent grilling by peers over her handling of the public finances. It prompted shadow business secretary Andrew Griffith to accuse her of a 'shocking grasp of detail'. And it came as Reeves prepares to unleash another volley of tax rises later this year that experts say will further strangle anaemic growth. In one exchange with former Chancellor Lord Lamont, Reeves twice claimed the £425 billion Local Government Pension Scheme was managed by '96 administering authorities' which she wants to cut to 'eight pools'. 'We are going to consolidate local government pensions, because we want them to work better for savers and taxpayers,' she added, flanked by two senior Treasury officials. But the LGPS is managed by 86 local authorities, not 96, while the number of pools is being cut from eight to six under controversial new laws that will force two of them covering the Tory shires of southern England to find new homes by March. After being contacted by The Mail on Sunday, Treasury officials corrected Hansard, Parliament's written record of debates. They were also forced to clarify to the House of Lords Economic Affairs committee that when Reeves told peers the unemployment rate was 'just over 4 per cent', the latest figure from the Office for National Statistics was closer to 5 per cent – at 4.7 per cent. Griffith told The Mail on Sunday: 'When she's writing such big cheques with taxpayers' money, it's no time to be loose with your numbers.' The Chancellor's geography also escaped her at the hearing, which took place three weeks after her tearful appearance before MPs during Prime Minister's questions. Reeves, who represents a constituency in Leeds, told peers that the Greater Manchester tram network was being extended to 'Bury and somewhere else'. In fact Bury already has a tram stop. The planned extension will go to Stockport, more than 20 miles away. Bury station is being upgraded but the work was 'not an extension to the metro line', Treasury officials admitted. The latest revelations about Reeves's lack of attention to detail come as she prepares to fill a hole of up to £50 billion in the public finances in her Autumn Budget. She has ruled out tax rises on 'working people' – namely income tax, VAT and employee National Insurance – but left the door open to raids on inheritance tax, pensions, gambling companies and banks. Reeves could also extend the freeze on income tax thresholds to help balance the books. The pause is due to end in 2028, from which point the thresholds are set to rise with inflation. But keeping the freeze for another two years would generate more cash for the Treasury, as rising wages and pensions pull more people into higher tax bands. Extending the stealth tax, known as 'fiscal drag', could raise £8 billion, claims the Resolution Foundation think-tank. Experts say she boxed herself in by also pledging to stick to her fiscal rules, which include only borrowing to invest by the end of this Parliament. Key to how much money she needs to find is how the official forecaster judges likely productivity growth – the rate of hourly output per worker. Reeves will have to find even more money if the Office for Budget Responsibility cuts its forecast for productivity growth, which it has consistently overestimated. Productivity growth stalled in the second quarter, heaping pressure on the OBR to act. A downgrade would have 'very significant fiscal implications that far exceed the policy U-turns on welfare spending,' said Simon French at stockbroker Panmure Liberum.
Daily Mail
10 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
RACHEL RICKARD STRAUS: We pay a high price if No 11 is scared of markets
What can throw tantrums and fling its toys out of the pram when it doesn't get what it was hoping for? A petulant child may spring to mind – but it's an equally accurate description of financial markets. Investors crave certainty and Governments tie themselves in knots trying to give it to them for fear of the consequences. Understandably so – if investors start to lose confidence in a Government's prudence, they can throw a strop and refuse to lend it more money unless they are compensated with higher interest payments. Debt costs then spiral, gobbling up taxes and leaving the Government with less to spend on everything else. So you can see where Chancellor Rachel Reeves was coming from when she made it clear from the off that her mission is to keep financial markets happy. With debt interest predicted to cost us £111 billion this year, we can hardly afford for the bill to rise further. That's already around £3,915 per household. Appeased markets should mean lower debt payments – in theory, good news for us all. But Reeves' attempts to provide security for financial markets are resulting in her eroding it elsewhere. UK households are now the ones in the dark and fearful about what's coming their way – and that is starting to have its own consequences. Ms Reeves' strategy to create certainty was to construct rules about how much the Government would borrow and pledge never to break them. But meeting her rules is getting trickier as economic growth weakens. Short of a miracle, the only way she'll manage it is if households stump up. She'll have to find £50 billion from somewhere – be it tax rises or spending cuts. The problem is that we won't know where she'll target – and are unlikely to for several long months until the autumn Budget. The uncertainty is already starting to bite. Financial experts have told us that households risk making costly mistakes when trying to protect their estates against the possibility that Ms Reeves chooses to target inheritance tax. Leading estate agent Savills last week warned that a 'vacuum' of information about potential changes to inheritance tax is also affected house sales. Potential buyers are sitting on their hands in part because they don't know what is coming down the line. Collectively that hurts the housing market, but individually that's thousands of households stuck in homes that no longer suit them and putting life plans on hold. Aviva boss Amanda Blanc also warned last week that fears of a Budget tax raid are stoking customers' uncertainty. 'There's been a huge amount of speculation… customers should wait and see before they take any action,' she said. 'It is really important you don't do anything detrimental.' Relentless uncertainty about the outlook for pensions erodes confidence in them – which can make savers think twice before making such a long-term investment. Things will only get worse as we get closer to the Budget. Chancellors and the Treasury have a habit of stoking rumours about what they might do – to gauge the public response and decide whether or not to go ahead. Think-tanks, financial firms and other invested organisations publish endless papers about what the Chancellor could and should do in the hope of steering her decisions. Speculation mounts, fears grow. It's easy to get caught up in the frenzy. So what to do? For most of us, the best action to take is likely to be none at all. Acting rashly on rumour could leave you worse off than waiting to see what happens. Any changes the Chancellor does make are unlikely to come in immediately, so you should have time to act then if you need to. But it doesn't hurt to do things that are win-win – in other words, that you wouldn't regret regardless of what the Chancellor does or doesn't announce. That means stashing what you can in your Isa, where investment returns, dividends and interest earned are tax-free. It means remembering your pension as well. Tax relief is effectively free money in your long-term savings – an incredibly generous perk – and long may it remain. And it means doing what makes sense in your life, rather than what may prove to be the most tax efficient. Giving away wealth now may help keep it from the Chancellor if she targets inheritance tax, but that's little solace if it leaves you short in older age. Finally, the Chancellor should keep a check on the uncertainty that she's creating among households. If it results in fearful households curbing their spending, making poor financial decisions and a gummed-up housing market, then financial markets won't like that either – and, as always, they'll make her pay.
The Guardian
40 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Jacinta Allan wants to pick a fight about working from home – and businesses are playing into her hands
During the middle of the federal election campaign, amid relentless leaking about her unpopularity, claims she was dragging down Labor's vote and whispers of a possible challenge to her leadership, the Victorian premier Jacinta Allan had a realisation. 'I've decided I just don't care what they think any more,' one of Allan's ministers says she told them in mid-April. According to the minister, Allan said she was 'done' second-guessing herself and looking over her shoulder for threats – particularly from within her own party. She said was going to do what she thought was right, trust her political judgment and block out the noise. She even began starting her day with 'a few minutes of yoga', the minister says. Around the same time, Allan also hired a new chief-of-staff and social media team, hiring those who forged a huge online following for the former Queensland premier Steven Miles. As the news cycle focused on the federal election, then the latest battle in the never-ending internal war within the Victorian Liberal party, Allan and her team got to work. The results were on show at Labor's state conference earlier this month. Allan arrived to a standing ovation. The conference room at Moonee Valley racecourse had been primed by her deputy, Ben Carroll, and a slick campaign-style video ending with a slogan: 'Labor is on your side'. Then came the centrepiece of her speech – a promise to legislate the right to work from home two days a week for those who can reasonably do so. Ministers say the policy came directly from the premier and her office. The coordinating ministers' committee of cabinet – senior ministers representing each government department – were only told during a Zoom meeting the day before. That briefing came so late that it's likely the Labor-red 'work-from-home works' backdrop had already been delivered to 1 Treasury Place. How the state government will legislate this right, given Victoria handed its industrial relations powers to the commonwealth years ago, remains unclear. But this populist policy is one of Allan's most politically astute moves to date – and a sharp contrast to Peter Dutton's attempt to force public servants back to the office, a plan he was forced to abandon mid-campaign. Allan, a mother of two who works from her home in Bendigo two hours from Melbourne on most Fridays, understands how companies demanding a return to the office can create fear and uncertainty for people trying to balance work and family life. The policy gives her a way to connect with women, who often bear the brunt of that balancing act but are as a group yet to warm to her, party sources say. It also lets her use a trick out of former premier Daniel Andrews' political playbook, another minister says. 'He always said you have to pick a fight with someone,' they say. In her conference speech, Allan made her target clear: 'There are plenty of bosses who will fight us on this … if it's a fight they want, they'll get it.' The backlash from business and property groups to the proposal was swift – but Jessie McCrone, a managing partner at FMRS Advisory and former senior advisor to Andrews, says it was likely welcomed by the government. 'Good communications is about clarity, authenticity and repetition, and that is what Premier Allan has here. She's picked an issue that has salience and combustibility – that is clearly something she welcomes,' McCrone says. 'At the same time, the Liberals are are in a lose-lose situation. If they talk about it, they're basically doing the government's job for them. But if they don't talk about it, the business community is not going to be very happy with them.' McCrone draws similarities between work from home and Allan's other signature policy of increasing housing density across the suburbs, which she announced late last year in well-heeled Brighton. 'They are both targeting key voter groups and they've got the same message: 'I'm on your side',' McCrone says. Then, she she railed against Nimbys and boomers. Now, Allan says she's backing 'workers, especially women, single mums, carers' against big bosses. But unlike the housing announcement, which was gatecrashed by local Liberal MP James Newbury and angry locals, the state opposition have resisted taking the bait. The federal member for Goldstein, Tim Wilson, was less cautious and compared the work from home policy to apartheid. Even if, once legislated, the policy faces a court challenge – as many expect – Allan's team is likely to frame it as another chance to fight for workers and yet another opportunity to talk about it. She has been talking about it all week: on Tuesday, she announced consultation on the plan was open (and as of Friday it had received more than 10,000 responses, a number most government surveys don't reach in months). On Wednesday, she stood with plumbers who said they didn't 'begrudge' those able to work from home, countering the argument used by Wilson and others that tradies would oppose the plan. On Thursday, Allan appeared with a cafe owner who credited people working from home for their success, countering another argument that it's bad for small businesses. Several MPs, including some within the oppositions ranks, said she appeared more confident. This extended to the chamber, where the government used almost all its allotted ministerial statements – the state's version of a Dorothy Dixer - to spruik the benefits of working from home. Some links to the policy were tenuous at best – including the minister for outdoor recreation, Steve Dimopoulos, saying it would give people 'three hours back' each week to check out the state's parks, waterways and lakes. It left the opposition and reporters alike bored – but they're not the audience. As one Labor MP said: 'By the time you and I are sick of hearing of it, that's when we know it's cut through to the public.'
