Response to Lords Constitution Committee says inaccurate or ‘clickbait’ reporting fuels attacks on judiciary
The Government has warned of "baseless accusations" against judges, particularly in immigration cases, in its formal response the House of Lords Constitution Committee's November 2025 report on the rule of law.
Image credit: UK GovernmentIn its official response, published this week, the Government said it shared the Committee's concerns about declining respect for the judiciary and increasing personal attacks on judges following court decisions. It said this had been especially evident in immigration cases, where judges had been accused of political bias and where some reporting had been inaccurate or focused on irrelevant details.
The Government's response stated: "Over the last year, we have seen baseless accusations that have called into question the impartiality of individual judges and the judiciary following reporting of judicial decisions, mainly but not exclusively immigration decisions. Many reports of these decisions have been inaccurate or have picked on a 'clickbait' detail that was in fact irrelevant to the decision. The cumulative effect has been to foster a view of the judiciary – who swear to act impartially and whose task it is to apply the law – as partisan, biased and politically activist."
The Government also said it was "very concerned" that public abuse of the judiciary had led to threats to judges' safety. It added that the Lord Chancellor and other ministers had spoken out in defence of judicial independence and would continue to do so, emphasising that while court judgments could be debated, personal attacks on judges were unacceptable.
Highlighting the Constitution Committee's wider findings, the Government said concerns about immigration rulings formed part of a broader erosion of trust in the judiciary and public institutions.
The response states: "The Committee has noted an erosion of respect for the judiciary and has outlined a number of reasons for this. We view this development as a worrying aspect of a wider trend of declining trust in public institutions. Modern political debate has become more polarised, and the speed and frenetic nature of the news cycle and online media commentary has exacerbated the situation. Judges, of course, are often required to make decisions in areas that are politically charged. We have seen this particularly in the area of immigration, where some media commentators and politicians have accused judges of making politically-biased decisions and have even called for their removal from office. In this context, the Lord Chancellor has made clear that 'the independence of judges from politicians is not optional' and is 'the cornerstone of British democracy', and the Attorney General has said it is 'entirely unacceptable' to attack judges on a personal basis.
"The Committee well understands that this erosion of respect is not a matter of constitutional niceties. Trust in an independent judiciary to resolve disputes fairly and to act as a check on the arbitrary exercise of power is vital to our functioning as a democracy. As the Government said in its written evidence, the rule of law, effective courts and an independent judiciary are essential prerequisites for a strong, open economy and therefore for creating the conditions for economic growth. They provide a basis for strong property and intellectual property rights, effective contract enforcement, investor protection, legal certainty and economic stability. And as we have seen, and as the Committee has pointed out, they are frontline protections of democracy."
In a covering letter accompanying the response, the Lord Chancellor David Lammy warned that independent courts were "of absolute and fundamental importance" in protecting the UK's constitutional order. He said he was "deeply concerned by attempts to erode public trust" in judges and cautioned that it was "democratic backsliding when politicians decide which judges can stay or go".