Theresa May has a duty to disassociate herself from the “vitriolic abuse” heaped onto the judiciary by newspapers including the Daily Mail, according to a senior Conservative MP, who said the prime minister had fallen short over the controversy.

Dominic Grieve, the former attorney general, said it was not good enough for May and other government ministers to defend the freedom of the press after three high court judges were labelled “enemies of the people”.

The Daily Mail accused the Lord Chief Justice and two senior colleagues of declaring “war on democracy” after they ruled against the government’s right to trigger article 50 without a vote in parliament. It produced further unapologetic revelations about the backgrounds of the 11 top judges currently overseeing May’s appeal of the case in the supreme court.

“It is the duty of parliamentarians to stand up for the independence of the judiciary, and my complaint about the government over this matter was that it simply said we believe in the independence of the judiciary and we believe in the independence of the press,” Grieve told the Guardian’s Politics Weekly podcast.

“Well I believe in the freedom of the press as well but that doesn’t mean to say I’m neutral to the way in which the press expresses itself. And seeing that the government was a party to this litigation I think it was particularly important that it should disassociate itself completely from the sort of sentiments being expressed by the Daily Mail.”



Grieve argued that Britain was blessed to have a legal system admired the world over for its independence, integrity and quality, and said the supreme court had the ability to ensure that their approach to the case was entirely from a legal point of view.



He admitted that judges were human beings who could get things wrong, adding: “It is perfectly legitimate to criticise judges if you disagree with the decision they’ve come to but what was to my mind outrageous about the Daily Mail coverage is it was mere vitriolic abuse.

“Now the Daily Mail as I understand it appears to believe in British values, which I would have expected to include the independence of our judiciary. And yet it has mounted a campaign, sustained it and repeated it and justified it, that it is acceptable to heap vitriolic abuse on judges for doing exactly what is required of them in our constitutional set up. I find that quite worrying.”

May responded to the original furore, following coverage of the high court loss, by telling journalists that while she believed in the value of the independence of the judiciary she also valued the freedom of the press.

“I’m concerned about the freedom of the press but the freedom of the press is not being undermined in this country – not at the moment anyway. If the press freedom needs to be protected I’ll speak up for it,” said Grieve.

“What I’m concerned about is vitriolic abuse being heaped by a section of the press on the judiciary on no objective basis and the duty on government ministers, including the prime minister, to dissociate themselves completely from such sentiments.”



The former attorney general has become a critical voice on the backbenches about a possible drive towards a hard Brexit in which Britain could cut off economic ties to a large extent. He said he sympathised with the prime minister’s “awkward task” of trying to negotiate a Brexit deal, which he said could involve nightmarish complexities.

He said he would be prepared to support his party leader, but warned against forgetting those Tory supporters who did not want the country to leave the EU.

“The government has a difficult task, the referendum was very divisive... and many of the 48% who voted to remain were in fact Conservative voters. If the government wants to continue governing it has to have a broad coalition of interests and therefore it faces the difficult task of reconciling two different views while respecting the ... result,” he said.

He added that the key was for May to try to understand the anxieties felt by many of those who voted to remain inside the EU.

“I realise my Brexiteer colleagues think this is a brave new world in which a cornucopia of wonderful things will come pouring down on the UK when we free ourselves of European shackles, but there is an alternative viewpoint that this is a very high risk adventure on which we may pay a heavy economic and security price.”