with tatiana sanchez. >> nigel, thank you very much. the top stories this evening. us president donald trump has spoken with russian president vladimir putin today about ending the war in ukraine. trump saying that call went very well, mr trump said in a post on his social media platform. we've also agreed to have our respective teams start negotiations immediately. putin last spoke to a sitting us president in february 2022, when he had a call with joe biden shortly before ordering thousands of troops into ukraine, while ukraine's president volodymyr zelenskyy has also spoken to the us president this evening, they reportedly discussed opportunities to achieve peace and the preparation of a document governing security and economic cooperation. >> to the president, to his message that he will support ukraine and he really wants to stop this war. and i know that he's a strong man. and i'm sure

that he will push putin. >> in other news, a review into the handling of the man who murdered sir david amess under the counter—terror programme prevent has found his assessments were problematic. ali harbi ali, who was given a whole life sentence in 2022, had been referred to prevent seven years before he killed the veteran mp in october in 2021, but his case was closed in 2016. the review found the handling of his prevent case was suboptimal and was closed too quickly. the government promised to publish the prevent learning review after the report into southport killer axel rudakubana handling by the programme was published last week, and the prime minister has told the families of those killed in the nottingham attacks that a judge led public inquiry will take place in a matter of weeks. dufing place in a matter of weeks. during a meeting at number 10 today, the families of barnaby webber, grace o'malley—kumar and ian coates were told by sir keir starmer that a number of

different agencies would be scrutinised by the probe. valdo calocane killed 19 year old students mr webber and miss o'malley—kumar and 65 year old caretaker mr coates, before attempting to kill three other people in those attacks in june 2023. emma webber said today is a good day. >> so it's the first bit of positive news that we've been able to have for a very, very long time. i'm still processing it. >> it'll be in the next few weeks. as we have always said, as families everywhere that valdo calocane intersected with the authorities, we were let down by those authorities. we've been working so hard towards it and i just think we couldn't be more delighted. i think for the nation, it's a it's a great day because everyone who's also suffered the way we have, we will make sure that changes come. >> and those our latest gb news headlines. it is back to farage. >> for the very latest gb news

direct to your smartphone, sign up to news alerts by scanning the qr code or go to gbnews.com/alerts. >> good evening. well, the big domestic news story of today is that a judge ruled yesterday that a judge ruled yesterday that a judge ruled yesterday that a family of six from gaza, because they have a relative in the united kingdom, can use the ukraine family scheme and can come to the united kingdom. and the judge, hugo norton taylor, made it absolutely clear this is on the basis of article eight of our old friend, the european convention on human rights. the right to a family life. well, as you can imagine, immediately people say, well, hang on a second. if this can be done on the basis that someone's got a relative here, there could be hundreds of thousands, millions, perhaps around the world in conflict zones, who would say, well, we want to come to the united kingdom to. i would also

add that if significant numbers of people did come from gaza, that would pose without doubt a serious security risk to our country. but that's only part of the debate. the real debate here is who's in charge, who makes the law, who decides immigration policy in this country? is it parliament and the government, or is it judges using their own interpretations of the echr? well, the prime minister was asked a question about this today and this was his answer. >> mr speaker, let me be clear. i do not agree with the decision. she is right. it is the wrong decision. she hasn't quite done her homework because the decision, the decision in question was taken under the last government, according to the legal framework from the last government. but, mr speaken last government. but, mr speaker, let me be clear. it should be parliament that makes the rules on immigration. it should be the government that makes the policy. that is the principle. and the home

secretary is already looking at the legal loophole, which we need to close in this particular case. >> well, yes, prime minister, i agree entirely. it should be parliament and government that makes these decisions. but is it is it is that what's happening? and i've got to ask you at home, who do you think is in charge? is it the judges or indeed, is it the government? it's going to be very interesting to see how this case shakes down. give me your thoughts, farage. gb news .com. now i'm joined down the line by paul garlick kc, a retired judge. paul. it was quite a robust response in parliament from the prime minister. but how can a prime minister. but how can a prime minister overturn a ruling of a judge that was made in a court yesterday? >> well, nigel, good evening and good evening. well, the prime

minister can't overturn the findings of a judge. he he can appeal to the to the appeal court and the home office. according to what i've read, rigorously resisted this case and resisted the appeal to the first tribunal. first level tribunal. but when a judge makes a decision, the judge is not assuming the powers of parliament or the government. and as you well know, because you're a parliamentarian, there are three seats of the rule of law. there's parliament who make the laws, the executive who propose the laws to parliament and then enforce them, and then the third seat of the rule of law is, is the judiciary who interpret the law and make sure that when a law is put into effect, it is put into an effect which in a lawful way and gives a right of appeal. so here the

home office. and don't get me wrong, i think it was wrong that this family initially used the ukrainian scheme to seek permanent leave to remain. and that may , because they didn't that may, because they didn't realise it was it doesn't matter. but then when on appeal, they, as they were entitled to, argued article eight of the european convention, the right to a family life and the families were the father's brother has been a citizen in the united kingdom since two thousand and seven, and the judge pointed out, which is something i don't think you actually mentioned when you referred to judge norton's ruling. he referred to the what he said, the situation in gaza, which gaza, which he said remains exceptionally dangerous and dire. and we all i think we all agree the situation is exceptionally dangerous and dire. now, this family came to the united kingdom, and of course, i accept entirely what they wanted to do was flee the

conflict. and who would blame them for wanting to do that? but they do have some family connections in this country. they the father of family, his brothers, i've said, has been here since two thousand and seven. and article eight of the european convention says there is a right to family life. now the judge has to interpret that in a way, or actually he has to interpret the decision of the home office and say, is that compatible with article eight of the european convention? and he found in this case that it wasn't, and that therefore he allowed the appeal. he did make it absolutely clear, though, that this is not a finding which will have general effect. it's very case specific on the evidence, and i haven't had the opportunity of seeing all the evidence that's before the judge, except the fact that the father of this family his brother was in is a uk citizen and has been since two thousand and has been since two thousand and seven. it's very difficult

to go behind the decision of a judge because the judge has much more information than we do, but he was just applying article eight of the european convention, >> which. >> which. >> no part of our law. >> no part of our law. >> so in terms of process, everything the judge did was correct. >> yes, absolutely. i'm not saying that i necessarily agree with his decision, but. the process he went through was was impeccable. yeah. >> paul garlick, thank you very much indeed. well, he laid out the position legally, very, very clearly. i'm joined by heather wheeler, former junior minister 1515 00:09:36,096 --> 00