Shadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick has intensified his campaign to overhaul the UK judiciary, targeting what he describes as "activist" judges exhibiting bias, particularly on migration issues. Ahead of his address at the Conservative Party conference in Manchester, Jenrick unveiled a dossier naming over 30 judges who, before or during their judicial appointments, reportedly showed support for pro-migration organisations or openly advocated for open borders via social media. He accuses these judges of undermining judicial independence and said a future Tory government would pursue sweeping reforms to remove judges engaged in political activism.

Jenrick's proposals include abolishing the Judicial Appointments Commission, returning appointment powers to the Lord Chancellor supported by a new judicial vetting committee tasked with ensuring candidates' political neutrality. He also plans to revamp the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO) with greater authority to investigate and remove judges who overstep their impartial role. Additionally, Jenrick aims to introduce a judicial register of interests akin to those held by MPs and Lords to increase transparency and prevent conflicts of interest. Other reforms include barring the use of judicial status for commercial gain and mandating full disclosure of part-time judges to enhance public trust.

A particularly controversial aspect of Jenrick's agenda is the abolition of the Sentencing Council, which he criticises as fostering a "two-tier justice" system. Instead, sentencing policy would be set directly by ministers. This move is part of a broader effort to address perceived judicial partiality, especially in immigration cases where court rulings frequently challenge Home Office decisions. According to official figures cited by Jenrick, asylum appeals have surged to over 50,000 annually, with nearly half succeeding, often citing European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) protections. On average, 180 foreign criminals yearly avoid deportation due to such appeals.

Jenrick, who supports the UK leaving the ECHR, argues these steps are necessary to restore public confidence in the judiciary. He contends that the current approach permits judges to act politically under judicial cover, which he sees as deeply corrosive. "If judges want to step into the political arena, they should stand for political office," he stated in an interview. He has formally reported 11 judges to the JCIO for allegedly breaching social media guidelines with activist content and insists on wholesale structural changes rather than "tinkering."

However, his proposals have sparked significant opposition from judicial and political quarters. The Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr condemned what she called "increasing and increasingly unacceptable sensationalist and inaccurate abuse" of judges, which has led to threats and intimidation. A judicial office spokesman underscored the importance of judicial independence and impartiality, stressing that judges decide cases based on law and evidence, not political views, and must recuse themselves if bias is evident. Labour has accused Jenrick of endangering judges with divisive rhetoric, warning that undermining judicial independence risks everyday protections for the public.

Jenrick's campaign marks a stark assertion of government control over the judiciary at a time of contentious debate over migration and the UK's legal framework post-Brexit. While he aims to clamp down on what he labels a "hidden network" of partisan judicial activism, critics argue that granting ministers more influence risks politicising the judiciary further. The unfolding contest between executive power and judicial independence will remain a key flashpoint as Britain grapples with how best to balance rule of law with government accountability and controls on migration.

📌 Reference Map:

Source: Noah Wire Services