On October 7, 2025, the Conservative Party Conference in Birmingham became the stage for one of the most contentious speeches in recent British political memory. Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary and a rising star within the Conservative Party, launched a sweeping attack on what he described as “activist” judges, vowing to sack dozens whom he accused of holding a “pro-migrant bias” and being part of a “hidden network” linked to open-border organizations. His speech, delivered to a relatively packed hall compared to the sparse audiences for other ministers, sent shockwaves through the legal and political establishment and ignited a fierce debate on the independence of the judiciary and the future of British constitutional norms.
Jenrick’s address was both theatrical and combative. He brandished a judge’s wig on stage, using it as a prop to symbolize the transition from personal identity to the impartial role of a legal arbiter. “How independent are they?” he asked the audience, waving the wig and accusing certain judges of dishonoring generations of independent jurists and undermining public trust in the law. According to The Independent, he compared these judges to a football referee who is secretly a season ticket holder for the opposing team, declaring, “Judges who blur the line between adjudication and activism can have no place in our justice system.”
Jenrick’s proposals were dramatic in scope. He announced plans to abolish the Judicial Appointments Commission, a body created under New Labour reforms to ensure an independent and transparent process for appointing judges. In its place, he pledged to restore the power of appointment to the Lord Chancellor, a political role within the government. “We will restore the proper role of our judiciary, putting ultimate power back where it belongs, in the hands of Parliament, and ministers, accountable to you, the people of our country,” he declared, as reported by the Daily Mail. “The Lord Chancellor will once again appoint the judges. No more quangos and they will be instructed never to permit political activists of any political hue to don the wig, ever again.”
The shadow justice secretary went further, promising to reform the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO) to grant it new powers to investigate and remove judges found to be engaging in political activism, such as campaigning for open borders. He also proposed the creation of a judicial register of interest to increase transparency regarding judges’ affiliations. In addition, Jenrick vowed to scrap the independent Sentencing Council, which is responsible for setting guidelines on sentencing, and to transfer those responsibilities to the Justice Secretary, who would be directly accountable to Parliament. He argued that this would ensure greater accountability and restore public confidence in the justice system.
Jenrick’s attack was not limited to institutional reforms. He claimed to have compiled a list of around 35 full-time and part-time justices whom he accused of being part of a “hidden network” supporting open-border causes, some of whom, he alleged, continued to advocate for migrants while serving as judges. “It’s like finding out halfway through a football match that the ref is actually a season ticket holder for the other side,” he told delegates, according to The Independent. He also took aim at the Sentencing Council’s earlier guidance recommending that judges consider factors such as ethnicity and gender in pre-sentence reports, a move he and others criticized as potentially leading to unequal justice. That guidance was later withdrawn, and the government introduced legislation requiring ministerial approval for any future guidance.
The reaction from the legal community and political opponents was swift and scathing. Former Supreme Court judge Lord Sumption, speaking to BBC Radio 4’s World At One, warned that Jenrick’s proposals would undermine public confidence in the judiciary. “The only possible reason for going back to the old system would be to appoint judges who were less independent or more political than the ones appointed by the Judicial Appointments Commission,” he said. Lord Sumption further cautioned that such a shift would move Britain toward a US-style politicized judiciary: “In the United States, the Supreme Court has become subservient to the president and enabled him to behave like an autocrat. I think that is a very serious business in the United States and we should be very careful to take warning from it.”
Justice Secretary David Lammy was equally forthright in his condemnation. “Robert Jenrick calls himself a patriot, but he tramples on the British values he claims to defend. He calls himself a Conservative, but he threatens to trash the institutions and traditions that hold our country together,” Lammy said, as quoted by The Independent. “The independence of judges from politicians is not optional. It is the cornerstone of British democracy. When politicians start deciding which judges can stay or go, that is democratic backsliding and Robert Jenrick knows it.” Lammy’s remarks also referenced a leaked hot-mic tape from earlier in the year, in which Jenrick made controversial comments about race during a visit to Birmingham, further fueling the political tensions surrounding the speech.
The Law Society of England and Wales weighed in as well, with President Richard Atkinson emphasizing the importance of maintaining judicial independence and respect for the rule of law. “Sentencing guidelines are important to the courts to ensure consistency, while allowing judges discretion to get the sentence correct for the particular offence and offender, within the framework set by parliament,” Atkinson stated, reinforcing the legal profession’s concern over political interference in judicial matters.
Within the Conservative Party, Jenrick’s speech was seen by many as a bold leadership pitch. As reported by The Spectator, he is regarded by a significant faction as the most exciting figure in the party and a potential successor to Kemi Badenoch. His speech, filled with personal jabs at political opponents such as Keir Starmer, David Lammy, Attorney General Richard Hermer, and Liz Truss, showcased both his combative style and his ambition. He ended with a patriotic flourish, invoking the “blue remembered hills over black country towns” and rallying the audience with the slogan, “let’s take our country back!”
Yet, the broader implications of Jenrick’s proposals have triggered alarm across the political spectrum. Critics warn that returning the appointment of judges to a political figure risks eroding the very independence that underpins the British legal system, potentially ushering in an era of politicized justice reminiscent of the US Supreme Court’s recent history. Supporters, meanwhile, argue that the reforms are necessary to restore public trust and ensure that the judiciary reflects the will of the people, not the agendas of unelected elites.
As the dust settles from Jenrick’s headline-grabbing address, the debate over the future of Britain’s courts and the boundaries between law and politics is set to intensify. Whether his vision will prevail, or whether it will be remembered as a provocative but ultimately divisive moment, remains to be seen. But for now, the independence of the judiciary—and the principles that have long defined British democracy—stand at the center of a national reckoning.
