It’s been quite a year for law and politics in the UK. From the unravelling scandal of wrongful convictions in the Post Office Horizon cases, to the chilling aftermath of the Lucy Letby trial, questions about accountability and reform have never been more pressing, as  growing scrutiny, and ever more polarised politics, continue to threaten the delicate balance between legal principles and public confidence. 

And through it all, Double Jeopardy has been bringing expert comment and the sharpest analysis wherever law and politics collide.

In this final episode of the year, Ken Macdonald and Tim Owen are joined by renowned legal commentator Joshua Rozenberg to look back on 2024. What were its defining legal and political moments ? Where is police accountability after the Chris Kaba shooting? Have we heard the last of Lucy Letby, and why is the government not doing more to rescue a crumbling justice system? Together, they examine the structural and cultural challenges facing the courts and legal institutions, exploring how these events are shaping public trust- and perhaps damaging it to the point of no repair.

This is not just a retrospective; it’s a critical interrogation of justice today. With sharp insights and deep analysis, this episode unpacks the interplay of law, politics, and public sentiment in shaping the UK's legal landscape.

The announcement that the Ministry of Justice has commissioned the Law Commission to undertake a comprehensive review of homicide law and sentencing in murder cases alongside the Gauke review of sentencing in non-homicide cases means that sentencing policy in England and Wales will be reviewed simultaneously by two separate bodies.

Given the role of longer sentences for murder in increasing sentences across the board, is this  a sensible way to tackle the sentence inflation generated over the past twenty years which is the principal cause of the current prisons crisis?

And with the wealth of existing data, including a magisterial 2006 Report by the Law Commission into homicide law, why does the Government need more reports other than to buy time? Beyond attacking Conservative governments for not building more prisons to accommodate yet more prisoners, what original ideas does the Justice Secretary actually have about how to reform the crumbling justice system?

In the latest episode of Double Jeopardy, Ken and Tim take us into the history and evolution of homicide sentencing, from the disastrous 2003 Criminal Justice Act conceived by New Labour to the present calls for change, exploring how these reforms intersect with broader legal principles and questioning whether the current system strikes the right balance between deterrence, punishment, and fairness.

Ken and Tim also examine the judiciary’s delicate role in managing sentence inflation and resisting political interference, all while advocating for a more logical and cohesive approach to homicide law.

As the House of Commons casts an historic vote on assisted dying, the debate over this deeply contentious issue isn’t going away. If anything, the vote has ignited even stronger passions on both sides, particularly about the judiciary’s role in navigating such morally charged territory, making decisions over life and death.

In the latest episode of Double Jeopardy, Ken Macdonald and Tim Owen dissect this dilemma, the impact of religious beliefs on the legislative process, and the delicate balance judges must maintain when dealing with life-and-death decisions.

The discussion then widens to include the resignation of Louise Haigh over a very old offence, a development that raises real questions about whether her treatment is consistent with the government’s stated policies on rehabilitation, or whether her sacking was purely political. Against this backdrop, Ken and Tim reflect on the wider challenges facing the judicial system, including the persistent backlog of cases that threatens the integrity of justice in the UK.

Why is the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill being introduced as a Private Member’s Bill, and how does this approach compare to historical conscience-driven legislation like the Abortion Act or the abolition of capital punishment?

In this episode of Double Jeopardy, hosts Ken Macdonald and Tim Owen delve into the complex issues surrounding assisted dying, with a focus on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill due for Second Reading in Parliament on 29th November. They examine its historical context, the state of public opinion and question the legitimacy of Cabinet Ministers such as Wes Streeting and Shabana Mahmood deploying resource based arguments against the Bill and consider the role of religious belief in the public debate.

The discussion also examines the parliamentary scrutiny process and the judiciary's role in safeguarding against coercion.

The episode further explores the controversial subject of non-crime hate incidents, critiquing current police practices and addressing the challenge of balancing the monitoring of hate speech with the protection of civil liberties.

This thought-provoking episode offers an in-depth analysis of two critical intersections of law and politics.

Is the cost of litigating free speech issues in the UK disproportionately high and what reforms might address the problem?

In this episode of Double Jeopardy, Ken Macdonald and Tim Owen, together with leading media lawyer Gavin Millar KC, debate the irony of the Daily Mail’s recent victory before the the European Court of Human Rights over the issue of the costs incurred in unsuccessfully defending the paper in high profile defamation and privacy claims. They explore the chilling effect of the eye-wateringly high legal costs involved in High Court litigation and Gavin suggests some radical reforms of the current system in order effectively to maintain the right balance between the right to freedom of expression and the right to defend privacy and reputational rights.  

The trio also discuss Carole Cadwalladr’s pending case before the Strasbourg Court, the prospect of Labour enacting anti-SLAPP laws and the likelihood of bringing the Online Safety Act 2023 into full force given its potential to generate conflict with the Silicon Valley Broligarchy.

Tune in for an engaging conversation on media law, free speech, and the political dilemmas facing a new Labour government.

Join Ken Macdonald and Tim Owen in this episode of Double Jeopardy as they discuss significant legal developments, including the recent Court of Appeal judgment roundly rejecting Lucy Letby’s argument that pre-trial publicity made her retrial unfair. Are jurors really unaffected by prejudicial media reports?

They also look at the fascinating political journey of the new Shadow Secretary of State for Justice, Robert Jenrick. Is his hard-right act real, or a pose? And why has Kemi Badenoch appointed someone whose trademark policy is withdrawal from the ECHR?

Finally, they check out new guidance issued by Attorney General Richard Hermer about the approach he wants government lawyers to take when they’re weighing legal arguments. Is this real change or just window dressing?

Barristers’ Core Duty Eight currently requires members of the Bar  not to discriminate unlawfully against any person. However, the Bar Standards Board now wishes to go further and create a new duty requiring barristers positively to  advance equality, diversity and inclusion in their professional lives.

In this episode of Double Jeopardy, hosts Ken Macdonald and Tim Owen look at the row this proposal has sparked. Joining them is Karon Monaghan KC, a barrister specialising in equality and human rights law from Matrix Chambers, who provides insight into the implications of the proposed change, arguing that it does not represent the unwelcome imposition of a contested (American) ideology originating in the frenetic racial politics of that country, but is simply a necessary evolution in the duty to promote a diverse and inclusive bar. She suggests that reasonable steps towards progress, rather than quotas in all but name, are the goal.

The episode also covers recent legal developments impacting women’s sex-based rights. And as she prepares, along with Beth Grossman,  to argue a landmark case in the Supreme Court, which will determine once and for all the legal definition of a woman, Karon provides insight into a pivotal question: Should a trans woman with a Gender Recognition Certificate be legally recognised as a woman under the Equality Act? The answer will have major ramifications for all sex-based rights in the UK.

Tune in to hear Ken, Tim, and Karon navigate the legal complexities surrounding EDI and Core Duty Eight and explore what these shifts might mean for the future of barristers’ professional obligations.

Follow us on X/Twitter: 

⁠https://x.com/doubjeopardypod⁠

Follow us on LinkedIn: 

⁠https://www.linkedin.com/company/double-jeopardy-podcast/

With every aspect of our criminal justice system – the police, courts, prison system and probation service – in a state of apparently permanent crisis thanks to 15 years of systemic underfunding, there seems little hope of fundamental change any time soon. 

Amidst the turmoil, Danny Shaw - a prominent voice in reporting and analysing criminal justice issues for 31 years at the BBC and, more recently, as an advisor to Home Secretary Yvette Cooper -  now finds himself shaping the very policies he once analysed. His unique experience, from the newsroom to influencing Labour’s criminal justice agenda, sets the stage for a profound exploration of the reality of reforming our crippled justice system.

In this latest episode of Double Jeopardy, Ken Macdonald and Tim Owen sit down with Danny to dissect the formulation of Labour's crime policies and the continuing controversy arising from the shooting of Chris Kaba.

Together, they navigate the delicate balance between political rhetoric and the practical realities of implementation without any promise of increased spending on justice.

As they unravel these intricate dynamics, the discussion shifts to the broader debate on policing, highlighting the legal and moral dilemmas that arise in high-stakes, high-pressure situations. Against the background of the acquittal of Met Police Firearms officer Martyn Blake for the shooting of South London gangster Chris Kaba, the trio discuss the law of self-defence, prosecutorial discretion and police accountability,  critically assessing whether current legislation adequately protects the police and whether proposed reforms go far enough to address the root issues of trust and transparency within the justice system. 

In a lively debate, Danny explains why he agrees with Met Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley’s strong attack on the CPS for charging Martyn Blake and why he thinks Ken and Tim are wrong to believe that the DPP does not require fresh guidance to ensure that the police officers only face criminal charges when the law and the evidence supports a charging decision.

Follow us on X/Twitter: 

https://x.com/doubjeopardypod

Follow us on LinkedIn: 

https://www.linkedin.com/company/double-jeopardy-podcast/

Metropolitan Police firearms officer Martyn Blake has been acquitted of the murder of gangster Chris Kaba. He may still face the sack because the Independent Office for Police Conduct can pursue disciplinary actions even after a criminal acquittal. How does this process work? And what are the complexities in cases like this? Were the CPS right to prosecute and how does the law of self-defence impact the actions of armed officers?

Ken Macdonald and Tim Owen are back to discuss these and other questions arising from police shootings. They look at the role of the CPS in deciding to prosecute police officers, and historical cases like that of Jean Charles Menezes. Do the rules around the prosecution of police officers need to change? Would the public really have confidence in a system that offered special protection from prosecution for police officers?

In this episode they also consider the growing scandal of Mohamed Al-Fayed’s apparent serial sex offending, and the atrocious police response to the complaints of scores of women.

Follow us on X/Twitter: 

⁠https://x.com/doubjeopardypod⁠

Follow us on LinkedIn: 

⁠https://www.linkedin.com/company/double-jeopardy-podcast/

In recent episodes of Double Jeopardy, Ken Macdonald and Tim Owen have focused on the massive publicity surrounding the trial of Lucy Letby, and on the barrage of criticism of  the expert medical evidence used by the prosecution to prove that babies were deliberately harmed by Lucy Letby, rather than dying of natural causes in circumstances where premature babies are uniquely vulnerable to medical crisis.

In this episode Ken and Tim are joined by Dr Richard Latham, an NHS consultant forensic psychiatrist and expert witness who has huge experience of complex psycho-legal issues in criminal trials. In their discussion, they look at the duties and responsibilities of medics and scientists giving evidence in criminal proceedings.

How is a diagnosis of mental disorder or mental illness made where intent is a key issue? What is required for establishing the partial defence to murder of diminished responsibility, and how does it differ from insanity? What are the professional and ethical duties that  apply to experts instructed by the defence or the prosecution? And can it ever be appropriate for experts to speak out about a case they weren’t involved in, when they haven’t seen all the case materials?