A high-profile immigration case takes centre stage at Prime Minister’s Questions, sparking debate over refugee law and the reality of power politics in an age of populism. In this episode of Double Jeopardy, Ken Macdonald KC and Tim Owen KC dissect Kemi Badenoch’s focus on a controversial ruling involving a Palestinian family. 

They go on to consider the UN Convention on Refugees, and ask whether it remains viable in a new age of mass displacement and population movement.

How should governments respond to migration and asylum, when both are massive drivers of populist political movements seeking to promote authoritarianism and destroy liberal democracy?

Finally, Ken and Tim return to the campaign to remove Richard Hermer from his position as Attorney General. Don’t these coordinated attacks, coming from his own ministers, and directed against his close friend and ally, make Keir Starmer himself look weak?

You can find a link to the Gaza judgement here

And the Lady Chief Justice’s angry response to the attack on the Upper Tribunal Judge here

Ken Macdonald KC and Tim Owen KC explore the latest developments in the case of Lucy Letby, as her new barrister holds a second press conference revealing the conclusion of 14 experts that every baby died either as a result of natural causes or because of medical neglect. 

Do these new medical opinions ‘demolish’ the evidence of the prosecution experts, as her new barrister claims? Or, as some allege, has this new analysis taken place in a vacuum, ignoring  all the circumstantial evidence presented to the jury confirming the Crown’s expert testimony that these infants were deliberately harmed, and that their attacker was  Lucy Letby?

Ken and Tim also consider the stance of the CCRC in the face of what will certainly be a robust prosecution response to this new material, and look at the approach likely to be taken by the Court of Appeal if the case is referred back to it by the CCRC.

Finally the discussion turns to the increasingly concerted attacks from within government on Richard Hermer, the Attorney General. What does this obviously coordinated campaign of hostile briefing tell us about the relationship between a new Labour administration led by a former human rights barrister, and the law?

Ken Macdonald KC and Tim Owen KC are joined by guest Chris Henley KC, to explore the terrible miscarriage of justice which led to Andrew Malkinson spending 17 years in prison for a rape he didn’t commit.

Looking at Chris’s report into the scandal, they examine the failures of the Criminal Cases Review Commission, and  its atrocious mishandling of crucial DNA evidence.  What lay behind the CCRC’s reluctance to revisit this wrongful conviction, and why did it betray its founding mission? 

They also consider the danger of relying on identification evidence, and the Court of Appeal’s much overdue quashing of Malkinson’s conviction, which it delivered with no apology.

Why is there still such cultural resistance to the idea that innocent people can be convicted? And why aren’t Court of Appeal judges providing a stronger lead in uncovering injustice?

Ken Macdonald KC and Tim Owen KC review the Southport murder trial, following Axel Rudakubana's sentencing to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 52 years for the murders of three girls in Southport in July 2024.

The discussion examines the implications of recent legislative changes surrounding whole life orders for young people, the public's reaction to severe sentencing, and the challenges of defining terrorism within the legal framework. 

The episode concludes by considering  the effectiveness of the Prevent program in identifying potential threats and the difficulties of media reporting in high-profile cases.

In this episode, Ken Macdonald KC and Tim Owen KC examine the powerful  arguments for using telephone intercept evidence in UK criminal trials.

Why are the security services so opposed to a reform that would obviously give a major boost to convicting terrorists and serious criminals, and why have successive governments failed to overcome this opposition?

For context, Ken and Tim look at the 2020 joint French/Dutch police operation which led to the demise of  EncroChat (the so-called “WhatsApp for professional criminals”) and  the many successful prosecutions that followed in the UK and across Europe, as courts listened to criminals planning their crimes in real time.

Virtually every other fair trial country relies heavily on intercept evidence to fight terrorism and organised crime. Why does the UK continue to stand against it?

In this episode of Double Jeopardy, Ken Macdonald KC and Tim Owen KC engage in a thought-provoking discussion with their guest, Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation and state threats. Together, they examine the implications of Elon Musk's influence on UK politics, the challenges posed by foreign interference, and the far-reaching impact of the National Security Act.

The conversation explores emerging  power dynamics between tech companies and nation states, raising critical questions about  potential security threats posed by companies like X, Meta and TikTok.

In the light of recent noises from the Trump team, they also address the thorny question of the repatriation of British Islamic State prisoners to the UK. Should Shamima Begum and others be brought home to be dealt with here, as the Americans demand?

Finally, Ken and Tim consider  whether Liz Truss’s recent threat to sue Keir Starmer for defamation is the weirdest legal action of all time.

In the latest episode of Double Jeopardy, hosts Ken Macdonald KC and Tim Owen KC discuss the implications of the recent Chinese spy case involving Yang Tengbo and Prince Andrew. 

Looking at the role of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, they consider the sensitive role of national security in immigration law, Britain's evolving view of business relationships with China, and MI5's safety first approach to foreign influence. 

Sticking with national security, they discuss the trial of the GCHQ analyst Katherine Gun, who was accused of leaking a classified document to the press. Ken explains what led him to drop the case against her, and the role of the security services in that decision. 

Finally, they look at Elon Musk's increasingly bizarre interventions into UK domestic politics, and consider Keir Starmer's response. 

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.