THE statue of Lady Justice, who stands over the Old Bailey, well- balanced scales in one hand and a sword in the other, is the perfect metaphor for what Britain’s judges should aspire to be: Tough, even-handed and unswayed by prejudice.
But in the case of immigration tribunals something seems to have gone terribly wrong.
GettyThe scales of justice weigh heavily in favour of illegal migrants[/caption]
Garden Court ChambersImmigration judge Rebecca Chapman manages to combine three roles[/caption]
Garden Court ChambersGreg O Ceallaigh also sits as a judge on immigration tribunal cases[/caption]
The scales seem increasingly to be weighed down heavily on one side, the side that favours illegal migrants.
Research by the Conservative party has revealed that several judges who oversee asylum cases are also working as barristers representing asylum seekers.
Worse, some are involved with campaign groups that advocate on behalf of migrants.
One of them, Rebecca Chapman, manages to combine three roles. As well as sitting as an immigration judge, she works as a barrister on migration cases at Garden Court Chambers, a group of barristers renowned for representing left-wing interests in court.
But on top of that she also works for a charity called Refugee Legal Support, which is actively encouraging asylum seekers to make claims in Britain.
Its website declares that it “works in solidarity with people seeking sanctuary in the UK”.
Hijacked by clever lawyers
It organises what it calls its Family Routes Project, offering advice and practical support to migrants in Northern France who are seeking to cross the Channel to make asylum claims in Britain — in spite of already residing in a safe country.
Everyone is entitled to their views, of course, and campaign groups are free to make the case for easier migration if they really want to — just as opponents of mass migration are entitled to make their case, too.
But is it really acceptable to have people sitting as judges on asylum cases when they have so openly nailed their colours to the mast on the issue?
Ms Chapman is not the only judge in this position. One of her barrister colleagues, Greg O Ceallaigh, also sits as a judge on immigration tribunal cases.
In March he reposted on his LinkedIn page a message from the pro-migrant charity Asylum Aid which demanded repeal of the Conservatives’ Illegal Migration Act.
Again, perfectly reasonable people can disagree with the Conservatives’ Rwanda scheme, but to take a public position on an issue on which you are supposed to be acting as an impartial judge undermines the very principles of our legal system.
No one should be acting as judge and advocate at the same time.
Indeed, judges are supposed to be under a duty to recuse themselves from cases in which an outside observer would conclude there is a danger they would be biased.
Surely that should apply to any judge who has taken a public position on migration, or who works for any campaigning organisation which does so.
If you want to campaign for open migration you should not be allowed to sit as a judge on an immigration tribunal, it is as simple as that.
AFPPrime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has a background as a human rights lawyer[/caption]
You can imagine the outrage if an immigration judge turned out to be standing as a candidate for Reform UK, handing out leaflets saying “Stop the boats”.
They would, rightly, be suspected of harbouring a prejudice on the issue. So why is it any more acceptable to have judges who hold strong pro-migration opinions?
Small wonder then that immigration tribunals so often seem to be biased in favour of migrants and against the interests of the general public.
In one particularly outrageous recent case — which didn’t involve either Chapman or O Ceallaigh sitting as judge — a Sri Lankan paedophile who was jailed in Britain for molesting three boys has been allowed to stay here following his release on the grounds that he might face persecution back home on account of his homosexuality.
For goodness sake, does the safety of British children come into it at all?
Following that outrage, the Government hastily announced that in future foreign sex offenders will not be allowed to claim refugee status.
Change promised by the Government might not come to mean very much at all — especially if activist judges are still allowed to sit on migration cases.
Ross Clark
Critics, however, have pointed out that lawyers will still be able to make representations on behalf of foreign sex offenders, arguing that it would infringe their human rights to send them home.
In other words, the change promised by the Government might not come to mean very much at all — especially if activist judges are still allowed to sit on migration cases.
In another infamous recent case, it was revealed that an Albanian criminal was allowed to stay in Britain on the grounds that his son didn’t like the chicken nuggets on offer in Albania.
That case, at least, was overturned on appeal and sent back to a lower tribunal for reconsideration, but the “right to a family life” has been used by many criminals to avoid deportation.
The lawyers and others who drafted the European Convention on Human Rights in the 1950s would be appalled to know how their high-minded principles have been hijacked by clever lawyers working for low-lifers.
Keir Starmer, of course, has a background as a human rights lawyer. He is someone who always likes to live by the book. But to judge by his recent pronouncements, the growing one-sided nature of the immigration courts is becoming too much even for him.
A good start would be to root out activist judges who have formed strong left- liberal opinions on migration and who are therefore in no position to dispense balanced justice.
Published: [#item_custom_pubDate]
