“Activist” UK immigration judges stand accused of supporting open borders—and allowing their political views to determine their legal decisions—potentially breaching impartiality rules.
Shadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick claimed that such judges have infiltrated the immigration courts, stating
If a judge’s record of activism means they would be expected to recuse themselves from hearing certain cases, their position is untenable.
Jenrick’s argument is based on a Conservative Party report which compiled the public statements on immigration policy and in support of migrant charities by the judges in question. Their activities in this area, he suggests, lead to clear conflicts of interest, which the Judicial Appointments Commission, chaired by Helen Pitcher, is then failing to detect.
Among others, he cites the example of deputy judge Rebecca Chapman of the Upper Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber who also works for the charity Refugee Legal Support, serving on its casework and human resources sub-committees. She was appointed a trustee in 2020. “When the law is used to attack your rights, legal support is often your only defence,” says the charity. If Jenrick is to be believed, it’s a symptom of Britain’s broken borders that some of the legal support for migrants might actually be coming from immigration judges.
