Downing Street has dismissed concerns about a deportation flight to Jamaica as the preoccupation of a “Westminster bubble” and vowed to press ahead with an inquiry into the use of judicial review.

After a court judgment forced the government to remove more than half the people from the flight list, the prime minister’s press secretary said reaction to the case showed that “certain parts of Westminster still haven’t learned the lessons of the 2019 election”.

The flight to Jamaica took off early on Tuesday with 17 deportees onboard.

Downing Street said 25 people were prevented from being deported as a result of the court ruling. Originally about 50 had been expected to be onboard.

The chancellor, Sajid Javid, robustly defended the decision to go ahead with the flight on Tuesday, saying those onboard were not members of the Windrush generation but offenders who posed a risk to the public.

“These are all foreign national offenders – they have all received custodial sentences of 12 months or more. They are responsible for crimes like manslaughter, rape, dealing in class-A drugs,” Javid told BBC Radio 5 live.

The prime minister’s press secretary later dismissed concerns about the flight and highlighted the government’s intention to review the use of judicial review to challenge ministerial decision-making.

“The Westminster bubble’s view of people trying to halt this flight with judicial reviews makes the case perfectly to the public about why such a review is needed,” he said.

The Conservative manifesto had promised: “We will ensure that judicial review is available to protect the rights of the individuals against an overbearing state, while ensuring that it is not abused to conduct politics by another means or to create needless delays.”

On Monday night a court of appeal judge ordered the Home Office not to carry out the scheduled deportation amid concerns that mobile phone outages had prevented detainees from having access to legal advice.

Lady Justice Simler said those detainees should not be removed unless the Home Office was satisfied they “had access to a functioning non-O2 Sim card on or before 3 February”.

The action was brought because there had been a problem with the O2 phone network in the Heathrow detention centres since last month, meaning many detainees had been unable to exercise their legal right to contact their lawyers.

David Lammy, the Labour MP for Tottenham, described the departure of the flight as an outrage. In the House of Commons on Monday he had called for the flight to be halted amid concerns that more than 40 British children could be separated from their fathers.

“The government is deporting people who arrived in the UK as young as two, often for one-time drug offences,” he tweeted, linking to an article he wrote for the Guardian. “The lessons from Windrush have not been learned. Lives are being ruined because we don’t remember our history.”

On the Kay Burley at Breakfast show on Sky News, the chancellor was asked if he was sorry about one of the cases being a 23-year-old who spent 15 months in jail after being convicted at 17 for drug offences. He had come to the UK aged five. “We’re not even saying sorry,” Javid said.

Boris Johnson’s spokesman said the government “bitterly regrets” the decision of the court of appeal judges to stop the deportation of 25 offenders.

He said: “The legal process for removing these offenders which has included repeated appeals and judicial reviews has already cost the British public tens of thousands of pounds.

“The taxpayer will now be left with an even bigger bill and the prospect of convicts who are considered to pose a threat to the UK being granted bail while this matter is resolved. We make no apology whatsoever for seeking to remove foreign national offenders and we will be urgently appealing.”

The Liberal Democrats condemned Dominic Cummings, Johnson’s chief adviser, and his Tory colleagues, accusing them of acting like “despots” with regard to their attacks on the courts.

Sir Ed Davey, the Liberal Democrats leader, said: “Dominic Cummings seems to believe that he, Boris Johnson and Tory ministers are above the law. They are not. When ministers act outside of the bounds of the law, people must be able to hold them to account in the courts.

“These Tory attacks on our courts, judicial review and the Human Rights Act are all designed to weaken ordinary people and enable ministers to act with impunity. They are the actions of despots, not democrats.”

Simon Davis, the president of the Law Society of England and Wales, said: “Judicial review is a vital part of the checks and balances necessary to protect people from powerful institutions. It underpins the rule of law.

“We are pleased to see the courts upholding the principle of access to justice by ensuring that people facing deportation have the ability to receive proper legal advice, regardless of their history or nationality.”

Bella Sankey, the director of Detention Action, said the campaign group believed that some of the people who were due for deportation were not on the flight because they were covered by a court of appeal order.

She said: “We understand that some, possibly all, of these individuals may have been ultimately removed from the flight but we are currently trying to clarify this. We are trying to ensure that all of those covered by the protection of the court were not removed [from the UK] and that the government did not breach the court order.”

Amanda Pinto QC, the chair of the Bar Council, which represents barristers in England and Wales, said: “Judicial review is a hugely important tool in a democratic society by which decisions of public authorities, including government, are subject to legal scrutiny. “Far from being a mark of dysfunction, judicial review is an appropriate check on decision-making, of which a nation should be proud.

“Contrary to some perceptions, the government’s own figures show that applications for judicial review have fallen significantly over recent years – by 44% from 2015 to [the end of September] 2019. Cuts to legal aid have also affected individuals’ ability to bring judicial review proceedings.

“We have not yet seen details of what a ‘review’ of the judicial review process might look like, but anything that seeks to limit the ability of ordinary citizens to challenge decisions of those with power is a red flag.”