A judge who controversially blocked the deportation of a French-born criminal convicted of drug dealing, sexual assault and knife possession has been revealed as a former executive at a major pro-asylum charity, sparking calls for an investigation into potential conflicts of interest in Britain’s immigration courts.
Fiona Beach, 54, ruled that Christian Quadjovie, 26, posed no threat to the British public despite his extensive criminal record spanning nearly 15 years. The French national has spent 963 days behind bars in UK prisons since arriving in Britain aged ten in 2009.
The decision has since been overturned by the Upper Tribunal after Home Office lawyers successfully argued her judgement was made “against the weight of evidence. Shadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick has now formally requested the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office examine whether Ms Beach properly declared her previous roles with asylum advocacy organisations.
Records show Ms Beach served as a director at Asylum Aid, which provides free legal representation for migrants, between September 2004 and February 2007. She was also named as a volunteer barrister in annual reports published by Bail for Immigration Detainees (BID) in 2005 and 2007, appearing in sections thanking those who represented the charity’s clients in court.
Criminal History Spanning 15 Years
Quadjovie’s first conviction came at just 12 years old when he sexually assaulted a girl under the age of 13. At 17, he received a nine-month referral order after being caught carrying a knife in public. Months later in 2016, he was convicted of dealing Class A drugs in Salisbury.
Following a 30-month detention for drug offences, he was caught with more drugs after his release, prompting the Home Office to initiate deportation proceedings. However, in April 2024, Judge Beach heard his appeal and ruled in his favour.
In her tribunal decision, Ms Beach stated: “The appellant had some support in the UK in the form of family support, potential access to education and public funds and access to housing assistance yet found himself involved with gangs and drug dealing.
She added: “The concern would be whether the appellant would slip back in to the same way of earning money which he did in the UK, i.e. drug dealing. There is a real risk that this would occur again as a young man in France with few ties, no accommodation, no qualifications other than a GCSE in French and no employment experience on which to rely.”
Upper Tribunal Overturns Decision
The Upper Tribunal has now set aside Judge Beach’s decision following an appeal by the Home Office. In a ruling issued in June 2025, Upper Tribunal Judge Jackson found material errors of law in the original judgement and dismissed Quadjovie’s appeal on all grounds.
The case has reignited debate about judicial independence in immigration courts. Mr Jenrick said: “This is the latest example of an immigration judge with open borders views. The similarity between her decisions and the political views she has broadcast totally undermines confidence in the system.
He added: “Judges must be independent. If activist immigration judges step into the political arena, they should expect a political response. There must be accountability when judges display open borders activism and engage in political campaigning.
Wider Concerns About Immigration Judiciary
The controversy surrounding Judge Beach follows recent revelations about other immigration judges’ political activities. Research compiled by the Conservative Party has identified multiple cases where immigration judges have made public statements about the system they adjudicate.
One deputy judge in the Upper Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber, Rebecca Chapman, works for Refugee Legal Support, a charity providing assistance to migrants including those in France preparing to cross the Channel to Britain. Another judge publicly backed changes to immigration law promoted by a charity that previously challenged the Rwanda asylum scheme.
A recent poll by Merlin Strategy found 67 per cent of Britons believe the justice system has become too political, whilst 62 per cent said judges “sometimes make decisions on the basis of their personal political opinions. Seven out of ten respondents believed the criminal justice system prioritised criminals’ rights over victims’ rights.
Calls for Reform
Mr Jenrick has called for urgent reform of the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC), accusing it of failing to ensure judicial independence. “Either out of sheer incompetence, or in sympathy for the open borders views of some lawyers, it appears that basic checks aren’t being completed,” he said.
“Without reform, we will continue to see activists elevated to the bench, and confidence in judicial independence will only erode further.”
The Shadow Justice Secretary has also targeted JAC chairman Helen Pitcher, demanding her removal for allegedly failing to maintain the independence of the judiciary. Ms Pitcher previously resigned from her role as chairman of the Criminal Cases Review Commission in January following criticism over the Andrew Malkinson case.
Judicial Response
A spokesman for the judiciary defended the system, stating: “In each case, judges make decisions based on the evidence and arguments presented, and apply the law as it stands.”
Judicial sources maintained that Ms Beach stepped back from her role at Asylum Aid in December 2006 when appointed as a part-time judge, before being made a salaried tribunal judge in 2018.
The controversy comes as the number of migrants crossing the Channel in small boats since Labour took power has surpassed 50,000. Recent Home Office data revealed at least 200 people living in asylum seeker hotels have been charged with criminal offences, though police have not disclosed their immigration status.
As the debate over judicial impartiality in immigration cases intensifies, the case of Christian Quadjovie and Judge Beach has become a flashpoint in wider discussions about border control, public safety and the independence of Britain’s courts.
Follow for more updates on Britannia Daily
