Immigration judges accused of pushing ‘activist’ views and ‘backing open borders’ in potential breach of impartiality rules – including one who works for charity which helps Channel migrants

Immigration judges have been accused of potentially breaching the judicial code of conduct by advocating highly-charged political views.

Shadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick said the immigration courts – which can over-rule the Home Office in asylum cases and other types of immigration claims – had been infiltrated by ‘activist judges’.

Research compiled by the Conservative party showed immigration judges have made political remarks about the system they are supposed to adjudicate upon impartially.

One judge works for an organisation which provides weekly advice sessions for migrants in northern France who are seeking to enter Britain illegally by small boat.

Another has publicly backed calls for changes in immigration law by a charity which previously played a key role in legal challenges against the Conservatives’ Rwanda asylum scheme.

Mr Jenrick expressed concern that some immigration judges’ activities indicated a ‘clear breach’ of the judicial code of conduct.

The Tory frontbencher said: ‘If a judge’s record of activism means they would be expected to recuse themselves from hearing certain cases, their position is untenable.

‘Their apparent conflicts of interests are otherwise a clear breach of the judicial code of conduct.’

Shadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick MP said the organisation which] is tasked with appointing judges is ‘broken’ and had failed to ensure impartiality

He said the chairman of the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC), Helen Pitcher, should be removed for failing to ensure the organisation carried out ‘basic checks’ to ensure the independence of the judiciary.

‘These examples demonstrate the JAC is broken,’ Mr Jenrick said.

‘It is failing to uphold the independence of the judiciary.

‘Either out of sheer incompetence, or in sympathy for the open borders views of some lawyers, it appears that basic checks aren’t being completed.

‘The commission’s chair must be sacked.

‘Without reform, we will continue to see activists elevated to the bench, and confidence in judicial independence will only erode further.’

He added: ‘If activist immigration judges step into the political arena, they should expect a political response.

‘There must be accountability when judges display open borders activism and engage in political campaigning.

‘Judges are not beyond legitimate scrutiny.’

One deputy judge in the Upper Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber, Rebecca Chapman, works for Refugee Legal Support, a charity which provides legal support and other help to migrants, including those based in France who are heading for Britain across the Channel.

She serves on the charity’s casework sub-committee and its human resources sub-committee, and was appointed a trustee in 2020.

Deputy judge in the Upper Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber Rebecca Chapman, who also works for charity Refugee Legal Support

Refugee Legal Support’s website says it set up its first project in Greece in 2017 and then ‘expanded to northern France and the UK’.

‘We support people blocked in northern France through weekly information sessions and monthly visits from UK lawyers. We also support other organisations and volunteers through training and updates,’ its website says.

Its adds that the charity ‘works in solidarity with people seeking sanctuary in the UK and at points of transit in Europe’.

The charity regularly issues political statements on asylum and immigration policy in Britain and on the Continent.

In October it added its name to an open letter which accused European leaders of ‘declaring war on migrants’ and of adopting ‘immoral’ policies.

While working as a judge she is believed to be paid £790 a day, according to current pay scales.

Rebecca Chapman, a deputy judge in the Upper Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber, is also an immigration barrister and took part in a 2020 webinar, pictured, organised by her barrister set, Garden Court Chambers

Separately, Ms Chapman works as a barrister – specialising in immigration cases – at Left-wing Garden Court Chambers which describes itself as a ‘number one ranked barristers’ chambers committed to fighting injustice, defending human rights and upholding the rule of law’.

Ms Chapman has taken part in a number of public seminars run by the chambers for other lawyers in the immigration field.

In 2020, five years after her appointment as an immigration judge, she gave a presentation on the use of the European Convention on Human Rights in cases where asylum seekers claimed they should not be removed from Britain because they would be unable to access proper healthcare in their home country.

Rebecca Chapman’s presentation in the webinar for immigration lawyers included this ‘healthcare claims toolkit’ advising how to set out cases to the Home Office, and she went on to give advice on how to frame appeals to the court in which she sits as a judge

Greg Ó Ceallaigh KC also works as a deputy upper tribunal judge and earlier this year reposted a call for changes to immigration law by the charity Asylum Aid, which opposed the Rwanda asylum scheme

Ms Chapman said ‘Article 8 claims should be raised at the outset’ and said Home Office delays in reviewing policy in the area were ‘wholly wrong on every level’.

She provided a ‘healthcare claims toolkit’ to help other lawyers bring similar claims against the Home Office.

It included advice on how to prepare for their case being taken to appeal – in the very court where she sits as a judge.

Immigration judge Rebecca Chapman also works for a charity which provides advice to migrants in northern France. Migrants pictured earlier this year near a former warehouse on the outskirts of Calais which was being used as accommodation 

Another barrister based at Garden Court, Greg Ó Ceallaigh KC, also works as a deputy upper tribunal judge.

Mr Ó Ceallaigh was appointed last year but in March reposted a message on social networking site LinkedIn which called for immigration laws passed by the Conservatives to be scrapped.

The original message was written by the executive director of Asylum Aid, the pro-migrant charity which played a key role in bringing legal challenges against the Tories’ Rwanda asylum deal.

The judicial code of conduct says ‘judicial office holders should, so far as is reasonable, avoid extra-judicial activities that are likely to cause them to have to refrain from sitting because of a reasonable apprehension of bias or because of a conflict of interest that would arise from the activity’.

It adds: ‘The question is not whether the judicial office holder would in fact be biased (which would, of course, require recusal).

‘Judicial office holders must recuse themselves from any case where a fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that they would be biased.’

It goes on to say that ‘fee-paid’ or part-time judges have ‘no general prohibition on political activity’ but says they are ‘expected to refrain from any political activity which would conflict with their judicial office or be seen to compromise their impartiality’.

It comes after the Mail reported yesterday how Labour’s new measures to stop sex offenders claiming asylum will simply rely on immigration judges taking them into account when deciding whether a criminal should be deported.

Your browser does not support iframes.

Ms Pitcher resigned from another role as chairman of the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) in January.

Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood was seeking to sack her in the wake of serious criticism of the CCRC by an independent review of the case of Andrew Malkinson, who spent 17 years in jail for a rape he did not commit.

Ms Pitcher said at the time that she had been made a scapegoat.

Tory frontbencher Robert Jenrick called for Helen Pitcher, the chairman of the Judicial Appointments Commission, to be removed for failing to ensure the independence of the judiciary

A spokesman for the judiciary said: ‘Judicial independence and impartiality are fundamental to the rule of law.

‘Upon taking office, judges take the judicial oath where they swear to act “without fear or favour, affection or ill will”.

‘In each case, judges make decisions based on the evidence and arguments presented to them and apply the law as it stands.’

A JAC spokesman said it was unable to comment on individual cases.

A Ministry of Justice spokesman declined to comment, but the department is understood to be ‘carefully considering’ Ms Pitcher’s appointment in the wake of the review into Mr Malkinson’s case.

***
Read more at DailyMail.co.uk