Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it’s investigating the financials of Elon Musk’s pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, ‘The A Word’, which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.
Sir Keir Starmer has found himself in a row with the most senior judge in England and Wales after criticising an immigration decision at last week’s Prime Minister’s Questions.
A judge had granted a Palestinian family the right to remain in Britain after they applied through a scheme designed for Ukrainian refugees, which both the prime minister and Conservative leader said was “wrong.”
The Lady Chief Justice said she was “deeply troubled” about the remarks, adding that “both question and the answer” from Sir Keir and Mrs Badenoch were unacceptable.
But hitting back on Tuesday evening, the prime minister repeated his previous comments that it was “for Parliament to make laws and for the government to decide policy”.
“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,” a government spokesman said.
The Tories also dismissed Baroness Carr’s concerns, insisting the exchanges did not compromise the independence of the judiciary.
Responding to Baroness Carr’s rare intervention on Tuesday, Ms Badenoch insisted that “parliament is sovereign” and politicians must be able to discuss matters of “crucial public importance” to the UK.
“This doesn’t compromise the independence of the judiciary,” she said.
“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.
“He pretended he was looking at closing a legal ‘loophole’. This is not just some legal loophole that can be closed, but requires a fundamental overhaul of our flawed human rights laws.”
In last week’s PMQs, Sir Keir had said home secretary Yvette Cooper had got her team “working on closing this loophole” after the Tory leader questioned him about the tribunal’s findings, which she said were “completely wrong”.
The family, who have been granted anonymity, had an appeal against the decision dismissed by a first-tier immigration tribunal judge in September but a further appeal was allowed by upper tribunal judges in January.
Baroness Carr told reporters on Tuesday: “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.
“Both question and the 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.”
The judge said she has also written to the lord chancellor, Shabana Mahmood, who is also justice secretary.
But Ms Cooper held firm, responding: “We’ve been very clear that this was a case that we fought, and this is the case that we fought in the courts, and that this is a case that we disagreed with, and it’s why we’re looking at the loopholes that need to be closed.”
Shadow home secretary Chris Philp said politicians are “perfectly entitled to comment on decisions by judges”.
He added: “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 family of six at the heart of the case brought up in the Commons – comprising a mother and father and their four children who were aged 18, 17, eight and seven in September – were displaced when their home in the Gaza Strip was destroyed by an Israeli airstrike.
They applied for entry to the UK using the Ukraine family scheme to join the father’s brother, who has lived in the UK since 2007 and is a British citizen, but this was refused in May last year after the Home Office concluded the requirements of the scheme had not been met.
Responding to a question from Ms Badenoch, Sir Keir said: “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.”
A government spokesperson said: “The prime minister has made clear that it is for parliament to make the laws and for the government to decide policy.
“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.”
