In an unprecedented move, Lady Chief Justice Sue Carr, Baroness Carr of Walton-on-the-Hill, has drawn significant attention with her recent remarks on the ongoing debate surrounding Britain’s immigration policies. In a rare and bold move, she reprimanded both the leader of the opposition, Sir Keir Starmer, and Conservative MP Kemi Badenoch for discussing a critical issue during Prime Minister’s Questions. The issue at hand was the granting of residency to a Gazan family of six under a scheme designed specifically for Ukrainian refugees, despite their initial application being refused.
During the February 12 session, Badenoch expressed her concerns, stating that it was “completely wrong” for the family to have been allowed to remain in the UK under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Her comments sparked a rare moment of agreement between the opposition and the government, as Prime Minister Rishi Sunak voiced his disagreement with the decision, reported by the Express. However, Lady Chief Justice Carr took it upon herself to issue a formal rebuke, declaring both the question and the response as “unacceptable.”
Carr’s criticism stemmed from her belief that such matters should have been dealt with through the appellate process, implying that the Government and Opposition had disrespected the independence of the judiciary. The tone of her response, described by many as condescending, raises questions about the growing role of the judiciary in shaping national policy, particularly when it comes to immigration.
In her remarks, Lady Carr seemed oblivious to the wider implications of her criticism, especially at a time when the UK’s democratic will on immigration policies is frequently overridden by legal precedents like the ECHR. The court’s influence on British law has long been a point of contention, particularly since the establishment of the Supreme Court in 2009 under the New Labour government. This move, many argue, marks a shift from parliamentary sovereignty to a judiciary-led government that often goes against the will of the people.
The frustration felt by many in Britain is palpable, as legal interpretations appear to consistently override the decisions made by elected representatives. The current situation, critics claim, reflects a troubling trend where laws crafted by unelected officials take precedence over the democratic process.
As discussions continue over the influence of the ECHR on national governance, some, like the writer of this article, argue that the UK should consider withdrawing from the convention to reclaim control over its immigration policies. In light of this, the remarks made by Lady Chief Justice Carr only serve to deepen the divide between the people and the institutions meant to serve them, highlighting the ongoing struggle between national sovereignty and legal overreach.
