London set Garden Court chambers has described its immigration barristers as ‘among the best in the country’ after they came under fire in media commentary led by the shadow justice secretary.
Robert Jenrick MP has spearheaded a campaign to reveal what he describes as ‘activist’ judges and named two who he said should not sit on immigration cases. One of those was Mark Symes, who sits part-time in the upper tribunal. Symes is a barrister with 25 years' experience who practises at Garden Court.
Jenrick also compiled a list of 35 judges whom he singled out for criticism because of their public comments and alleged conflict of interests. The list included Greg Ó Ceallaigh KC, who presides over deportation asylum appeals and is a Garden Court silk.
The chambers posted a statement this week in response to ‘press and social media commentary focused on members of Garden Court Chambers and others who sit as part-time judges’. It said: ‘Like many others across the legal profession who sit in part-time judicial roles, those barristers continue their other legal work and practices. The immigration law team at Garden Court is among the best in the country, which is why the judiciary benefits from the high-level of skill and knowledge possessed by those practising at Garden Court.
‘The availability of high-quality specialist lawyers is of great importance to the effective management of the immigration appellate system which, as has been widely reported, has suffered significant backlogs.’
The statement added that many members of the court have engaged in charitable and public interest work, including in areas such as human rights, but said ‘this outside experience informs rather than diminishes their standing’.
At the Conservative Party conference Jenrick said a future Conservative government would restore the responsibility for appointing judges to ministers by scrapping the Judicial Appointments Commission, which selects judges in England and Wales.
Garden Court said this move would ‘represent a significant departure from the principles of judicial independence’. Its statement argued: ‘Allowing a serving minister to determine judicial appointments risks politicising the judiciary, undermining public confidence in the courts’ impartiality, and eroding the long-established constitutionally important principle of the separation of powers that underpins the rule of law in this country.’
6 Readers' comments