header-logo header-logo

08 October 2025
Issue: 8134 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , Criminal , Immigration & asylum , Human rights
printer mail-detail

‘Activist judges’ or an all-powerful justice secretary?

A future Conservative government would abolish the Sentencing Council and Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) and sack judges who defended migrants’ rights, shadow justice secretary Robert Jenrick has said

Addressing Conservative Party conference in Manchester this week, Jenrick criticised ‘activist’ judges and complained that ‘dozens of judges’ have ‘broadcast their open borders views’, supported migrant charities or ‘spent their whole careers fighting to keep illegal migrants in this country… The public rightly ask—how independent are they?’

Jenrick said the Conservatives would abolish the JAC and hand over the right to appoint judges to the justice secretary—restoring the old system that existed prior to Prime Minister Tony Blair’s reforms in 2006. The justice secretary would also set sentencing policy under a future Conservative government, while the Sentencing Council would be abolished.

Jenrick said the public were sick of ‘voting for tougher sentences and getting the opposite.

‘No longer will an unaccountable quango be able to subvert the will of the British people for criminals to be properly punished’.

In May, the government committed to introducing a presumption against short sentences and expanding the use of community sentencing, as recommended by Jenrick’s Conservative predecessor David Gauke, who served as justice secretary under Prime Minister Theresa May.

Party leader Kemi Badenoch used her conference speech to announce the next Conservative manifesto will contain a commitment to leave the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and repeal the Human Rights Act.

However, Law Society president Richard Atkinson accused the Conservative Party of ‘putting political interest above the public good.

‘It protects us from the power of the state. Without the backstop of the ECHR, governments of whatever party will be able to erode our rights with no come-back. We can tighten border controls without stripping the British public of their rights under the ECHR.’

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
back-to-top-scroll