CP
“If judges want to campaign for their political beliefs, they should quit the profession and do so in the democratic arena. Otherwise, they compromise the independence of the judiciary” says Robert Jenrick.
One of Britain’s top immigration judges has been exposed for sharing a string of far-left, anti-Conservative and pro-open borders views, raising serious concerns about the political neutrality of the judiciary.
Dubliner Greg Ó Ceallaigh is a UK barrister specialising in human rights, asylum and immigration, civil and public law. He is the eldest son of Jim and Elizabeth Kelly, Stillorgan, Ireland and has been accused of undermining public confidence in UK courts after a series of highly political social media posts were unearthed.
He was made Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal, Immigration and Asylum Chamber, in 2023 and appointed King’s Counsel (KC) in March 2024.
In a series of tweets on X (formerly Twitter), Shadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick has accused Ó Ceallaigh of compromising the independence of the judiciary and called for urgent reform of the Judicial Appointments Commission.
Jenrick posted: “Who are the judges that decide immigration cases? Well, let me lift the lid. Meet Greg Ó Ceallaigh. He specialises in asylum and deportations. Here’s a snapshot of his social media, where he reveals his far-left and open border views. He was appointed a deputy upper tribunal judge last year.”
Who are the judges that decide immigration cases? Well, let me lift the lid.
Meet Greg Ó Ceallaigh.
He specialises in asylum and deportations.
Here’s a snapshot of his social media, where he reveals his far-left and open border views.👇
— Robert Jenrick (@RobertJenrick) April 10, 2025
Pro-Migration Posts and Political Attacks on Government
Among the posts highlighted by Jenrick is one in which Judge Ó Ceallaigh publicly backs the repeal of the Illegal Migration Act, a key piece of legislation aimed at reducing illegal immigration and tackling people smuggling.
In one repost, he shared:
“Section 29 of the Illegal Migration Act needs to go, along with the rest of it. It was a bad piece of legislation and this Government is doing the right thing by scrapping most of it. But it should go the final mile and wash its hands of the whole thing.”
He has also expressed strong support for reversing Brexit, and in 2019 posted a poem attacking senior Conservative figures including Boris Johnson and Theresa May.
The tweet read:
“Boris and Davis and May
One lies, one’s thick, one’s grey
These terrible crooks
So different in looks
Should not have the final say
#PeoplesVoteMarch #PutitToThePeople #RevokeArt50”
Even more inflammatory was a tweet from 2012, in which he compared the Conservative Party to Nazis, cancer and lava.
He wrote:
“The Tory party conference helpfully clarified things: voting for a third party is not an option. They need to be dealt with as you would deal with the nazis, cancer or lava. They are a party for whom the expression ‘at all costs’ was invented.”
Concerns Over Judicial Impartiality
Ó Ceallaigh has recently presided over several high-profile immigration cases, including one in which he upheld the decision to block the deportation of a Greek drug dealer, arguing that it would infringe the individual’s private life.
While it is difficult to prove that Ó Ceallaigh’s strong political views influenced that decision, Jenrick said the overlap between his online activity and his rulings “brings this into sharper focus”.
He warned:
“If judges want to campaign for their political beliefs, they should quit the profession and do so in the democratic arena. Otherwise, they compromise the independence of the judiciary.”
Call for Accountability and Reform
Jenrick also levelled sharp criticism at the Judicial Appointments Commission, which he accused of failing to properly vet candidates for key roles in the legal system.
“What we can safely say is that the political views he has broadcast totally undermine confidence in the system,” he wrote.
“Why isn’t the Judicial Appointments Commission properly vetting candidates? The British people are sick of activist judges and the mounting evidence of a highly politicised legal system.”
He added:
“The judiciary must win back their confidence. Confidence would be partially restored if there was some accountability.
The head of the Judicial Appointments Committee is failing badly.
She must be sacked.”
Mounting Public Concern
The case has reignited concerns over the politicisation of Britain’s legal system, particularly in the field of immigration law, where a number of recent rulings have blocked deportations or overturned government policy.
Ó Ceallaigh’s online activity will now raise fresh questions over how judges are appointed, and whether political neutrality is being properly upheld — or even monitored.
The Ministry of Justice and the Judicial Appointments Commission have not yet commented on the revelations.
Screengrab taken from webinar by Garden Court Chambers.
This article (Robert Jenrick Exposes Top Immigration Judge for Far-left and Open Border Views) was created and published by Conservative Post and is republished here under “Fair Use” with attribution to the author CP
See Related Article Below
Lefty Lawyers Move Fast: Chambers Demands Image Removal Within Minutes of Immigration Judge Exposé
CP
Within minutes of publishing our recent article — “Robert Jenrick Exposes Top Immigration Judge for Far-left and Open Border Views” — The Conservative Post received a formal demand from the law chambers representing the KC in question, Greg Ó Ceallaigh, calling for the removal of a still image used to illustrate the piece.
The image in question? A simple screengrab taken from a publicly accessible webinar titled: “Refugee Week: Removals to Rwanda and Inadmissible Asylum Claims.”
The email, sent by a representative of Ó Ceallaigh’s chambers, claimed that the use of the image infringed copyright and linked to UK government guidance on digital images. It requested that the image be taken down — despite the fact that, under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, UK media are permitted to use still images from video content under fair dealing provisions for the purposes of news reporting, criticism or review.
This was the Chamber’s email to our editor:
This was our Editor’s response:
Intimidation Tactics? Or Just Fast Lawfare?
The timing is notable. The email came almost immediately after publication — faster than many press officers can issue a correction. It raises serious questions:
- Was this a coordinated effort to suppress a legitimate news story?
- Why is a law chambers invoking copyright in a scenario where fair dealing clearly applies?
- And crucially, why are these tactics used so effectively — and so quickly — by those on the Left?
As one former Home Office insider told The Conservative Post, left-wing legal activists were regularly mobilising at 4am to halt deportation flights to Rwanda.
“They bombard you. They throw every punch, file every motion, and face consequences later,” they said.
This is the machinery at work. This is what we are up against.
A Pattern of Legal Aggression
We’re seeing it time and again: conservative media and voices face legal and procedural pressure not over falsehoods or inaccuracies, but over presentation, tone, or — in this case — an entirely legitimate image used under UK law.
And let’s be clear: this image was not stolen or leaked. It was a screen grab from a public webinar hosted by the very chambers now raising objections.
What makes this even more ironic is that the chambers involved — legal professionals who should know the boundaries of copyright and the fair dealing provisions afforded to the press — appear to be using legalistic pressure in a way that feels less about copyright, and more about control.
Where’s the Right’s Legal Muscle?
This latest episode highlights a wider truth: the Left knows how to use the legal system to fight battles, both in court and in the media. They organise, they prepare, and when necessary, they pounce.
Meanwhile, the Right — too often — plays fair.
We respect rules. We don’t intimidate. We don’t bombard inboxes at dawn. We assume that the law will protect us, rather than actively using it as a weapon — as the Left so often does.
That must change. Thankfully the Great British PAC has arrived and is promising to fight for the right.
We Stand By Our Journalism
At The Conservative Post, we stand by our article. It is factual. It is sourced. And it reveals important truths about the political leanings of members of the judiciary making critical decisions about immigration in this country.
We also stand by our use of the image — which falls under fair dealing provisions as set out in the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
The law is clear:
“Fair dealing with a work for the purpose of News reporting current events does not infringe copyright…”
Which is what we were doing.
This isn’t just about one photo. It’s about freedom of the press, the creeping politicisation of our institutions, and the growing use of legal threats to silence dissent.
We won’t be intimidated. And we won’t be silenced.
This article (Lefty Lawyers Move Fast: Chambers Demands Image Removal Within Minutes of Immigration Judge Exposé) was created and published by Conservative Post and is republished here under “Fair Use” with attribution to the author CP
Featured image: twitter.com, x.com
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.
Leave a Reply