The most senior judge in England and Wales has spoken out about plans to recruit and train 150 judges to help implement Rishi Sunak’s Rwanda deportation policy.
The lady chief justice, Sue Carr, said decisions on how judges were deployed should be “exclusively a matter for the judiciary”, adding that plans outlined by the government drew “matters of judicial responsibility into the political arena”.
Her comments came after Alex Chalk, the lord chancellor and justice secretary, announced plans to expand court capacity and recruit new judges to fast-track asylum appeals under the Rwanda bill.
The announcement was designed to win over rightwing Conservative MPs deciding whether to vote against Sunak’s Rwanda bill.
On Tuesday night, Conservative deputy chairs Lee Anderson and Brendan Clarke-Smith resigned from their posts in order to vote for amendments to the bill. Kemi Badenoch’s parliamentary private secretary, Jane Stevenson, also stood down.
Sunak was dealt a blow to his authority as 68 MPs, most from within his own party, voted in favour of changes to the bill put forward by Conservative backbencher Bill Cash.
The amendment was rejected by a majority of 461 but the rebellion gave an indication of the scale of unease within the Conservative party during an election year.
In an appearance before the justice select committee, Carr, who became the first woman in the role when she was sworn in three months ago, was asked about the practicalities of recruiting judges and finding courts.
She replied: “Parliament has legislated, we – the judiciary – have acted in preparation for that legislation.
“But to be absolutely clear, matters of deployment of judges, the allocation of work for judges, and the use of courtrooms, is exclusively a matter for the judiciary, and more specifically, a matter for myself and the senior president of the tribunals. And it’s really important that people understand that clear division.”
Lord chief justices have historically been reluctant to be seen to criticise or contradict the government in any way. Carr’s immediate predecessor, Lord Burnett, tended to speak in generalities about upholding the rule of law despite government criticisms of “lefty lawyers” and “activist” judges.
Government sources have briefed that 150 judges could be brought in to deal with cases.
Hours before Carr’s intervention, in a written ministerial statement Chalk said he had asked more judges to be appointed to the first-tier and upper tribunal to speed up courts dealing with asylum seeker appeals.
The plans would provide 5,000 additional sitting days over the summer while extra space had been prepared, making a total of 25 courtrooms available for hearings.
“We are confident that, with the additional courtroom and judicial capacity detailed above, in line with projected levels agreed with the Home Office the vast majority of Illegal Migration Act appeal work will be dealt with by the courts in an expedited manner,” Chalk wrote.
This was the second time in a week that senior figures in the legal profession have questioned the government’s right to interfere in the courts.
Sunak announced last week unprecedented legislation to quash the convictions of more than 700 people convicted in cases brought by the Post Office using flawed evidence.
It was the latest test of the separation of powers between the executive, parliament and the judiciary under the UK’s unwritten constitution.
It follows the supreme court ruling in 2019 that Boris Johnson’s dismissal of parliament using prorogation powers was unlawful, a decision viewed by some Conservatives as an intrusion on executive authority.
Addressing the Commons during the committee stage debate, the former cabinet minister Sir Simon Clarke said government plans to draft in judges was “not a tenable strategy”.
“Apart from being one of the most effective devices that I can see to worsen our existing court backlog, this is simply confirmation of the scale of problems that the government itself anticipates as a result of what will happen under the current legislation,” he said.
Former prime minister Johnson had offered his support to more than 60 rightwing MPs backing amendments they claimed would tighten the bill by restricting individuals’ ability to challenge being sent to Rwanda.
Jenrick told the Commons the proposed changes would “address the evident flaws of the bill”. “They represent the last opportunity for us to get this policy right,” he said.
The shadow Home Office minister, Stephen Kinnock, told the Commons: “We on these benches will be proudly voting against the amendments that are being promoted by the benches opposite because the government’s Rwanda policy is unaffordable, unworkable and unlawful, because this bill is an affront to the values that we hold dear and because we will always stand up for the separation of powers, for the rule of law and for ensuring we can stand tall in the world.”
Challenged by Tory former immigration minister Robert Jenrick on whether Labour believed Rwanda was a safe country, Kinnock replied: “When the supreme court of our land rules that it is not safe to send asylum-seekers to Rwanda, we on these benches agree absolutely with that position.”
