No. 10’s latest effort to convince Tory rebels to vote for its Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill has collided with that regular ministerial inconvenience, the independence of the judiciary.
According to a report in Tuesday’s Times, ministers plan ‘to move 150 judges from the first-tier tribunal to the upper tribunal, the body that will hear appeals under the new legislation’. The newspaper said there would be additional training and extra pay for judges sitting on evenings and weekends. ‘This is designed to fast-track the process of considering individual legal appeals lodged by migrants,’ the paper explained.
But there are judges in London and the Judicial Office speaks for them. The Law Society Gazette reports that the Judicial Office has issued ‘an unusually forthright statement’ reminding the government that the assignment of judges is a matter for the Lady Chief Justice and senior tribunals president. A spokesperson told the legal publication that the independence of judicial deployment was ‘central to the rule of law’ and pointed to the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. Section 7 of that legislation states that the Lord (or Lady) Chief Justice is responsible ‘for the maintenance of appropriate arrangements for the deployment of the judiciary of England and Wales and the allocation of work within courts’. The judiciary’s statement in full reads:
The deployment of judges is a matter for the judiciary. In line with new provisions in the Illegal Migration Act, the judiciary have identified a number of first-tier tribunal judges who may be asked to sit in the upper tribunal to deal with any increase in appeals that arise from the Act. The decision to do so will be taken by the senior president of tribunals when the provisions in the Act commence, taking into account the interests of justice and the need for all matters before the tribunals to handled quickly and efficiently.
This is bad news for No. 10. Tory backbenchers have been particularly concerned about the ability of those facing transfer to Rwanda to launch lengthy appeals that jam up the legal process. Drafting in more judges might have allayed these concerns enough to free up a few extra votes for the Bill. This judicial slap down leaves that plan in tatters.
Comments