The Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood’s Restoring Order and Control policy is underway. It's based - in part - on measures carried out in Denmark which cut asylum claims there to a 40 year low.

From now on in the UK, people granted asylum - refugees - will face a review every two and a half years. If their country of origin is regarded as safe, they may be encouraged, or even forced, to go back.

There are lots of other changes. If someone is refused asylum, they’ll only be allowed a single appeal. If an asylum seeker breaks the law, works illegally or can financially support themselves, they’ll lose their benefits or accommodation.

Alongside the asylum reforms, there are also major changes to settlement in the UK, affecting both refugees and people on work and study visas. From now on, they will have to wait at least 10 years before they can obtain indefinite leave to remain, which means they can settle in the UK without restrictions.

You may be forgiven for thinking -"these are pretty big changes, I don’t recall there being a big debate in parliament or any votes?" And you’d be correct. This was all done through secondary legislation, meaning that it’s a change to existing rules.

But what are the possible legal battles for the government as it tries to introduce some of the toughest asylum laws in Europe?

Presenter: Dr Joelle Grogan

Contributors:

Under international law, when can a country declare war on another?

Was it legal for Israel and the United States to have carried out "pre-emptive" airstrikes across most of Iran’s provinces, which started the war? The USA says the attacks were justfied, because of an imminent threat from Iran's nuclear programme, and Israel claims it acted in self-defence.

The Israeli President went further - telling the BBC that focusing on the legality of the war instead of regional security is "mind-boggling" to him.

And what of Iran's response? Was it reasonable under international law? In the last few weeks, practically all its Gulf-state neighbours have been targeted, as well as its drones or missiles landing in Syria, Cyprus, Turkey and Azerbajan.

So does the Iranian retalliation justify the American and Israeli attacks under international law?

And if any country breaks international laws - are there any real consequences?

Contributors:

The Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood says she makes “no apology” for announcing the roll-out of Live Facial Recognition (LFR) to all the police services in England and Wales.

Under a government white paper on policing, the number of Live Facial Recognition vans will increase from 10 to 50.

Police say it’s groundbreaking technology in the fight against crime, but civil liberties groups say it’s authoritarian and a step towards a "surveillance state".

Facial recognition cameras are already used in shops; the difference with LFR is that the software used by police tracks faces against a watchlist - a specific database of faces - from a live video feed.

But the legal framework regulating the use of the technology is a patchwork of common law, human rights legislation and police guidelines, which has been challenged in the High Court.

There is also concern about a lack of oversight over how police watchlists are compiled, and why the number of people on the list now stretches into the thousands.

So is LFR legal?

Presenter: Dr Joelle Grogan

Contributors:

The courts system in England and Wales is in an unprecedented crisis. The backlog has reached 80,000 cases, and some defendants are being told they won't be able to have a criminal trial until 2030.

The government has introduced the Courts and Tribunals Bill, which contains a raft of measures to tackle delays and bring down the backlog; but the Justice Secretary David Lammy has admitted that things are going to get even worse before they get better.

The most controversial change is a plan to restrict the number of jury trials. The right to judgement by your peers has existed for more than 800 years, but for some offences, that's going to end.

Defendants will lose the right to choose between a jury trial or a magistrate's hearing in so-called "either-way" offences.

Magistrates will get increased sentencing powers - up from 12 months to 18 months.

More serious criminal cases, with likely sentences of up to three years will now be heard by a single judge - and no jury.

And only the most serious "indictable" offences, like murder, manslaughter and rape and any other offence with a sentence of longer than three years will be heard by a jury.

But will the reforms make a difference?

Presenter: Dr Joelle Grogan

Contributors:

The former US ambassador Peter Mandelson is on bail after being arrested on suspicion of Misconduct in Public Office.

Police have been investigating claims that when he was Business secretary, he shared market-sensitive government information with the financier Jeffrey Epstein.

His arrest comes a few days after police arrested Andrew Mountbatten Windsor, also on suspicion of Misconduct in Public Office, when he was a trade envoy. He is suspected of sharing confidential government documents with Epstein.

The arrests come after the release of a large number of files by the US Department of Justice. These relate to the activities of Jeffrey Epstein, who was a convicted sex offender. He died in 2019 while awaiting trial on charges of the sex-trafficking of underage girls.

Andrew Mountbatten Windsor was friends with Epstein. So was Lord Mandelson.

The BBC has approached Andrew Mountbatten Windsor for a response to these claims. He has always rejected any wrongdoing in connection with Jeffrey Epstein and denied any personal gain from his role as trade envoy.

Lord Mandelson has not publicly commented in recent weeks on the Epstein files, but the BBC understands his position is he has not acted in any way criminally and that he was not motivated by financial gain.

But what exactly is Misconduct in Public Office? It's a common law offence, with a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, but the Law Commission of England and Wales describes it as "ill-defined ".

So how did it evolve, who does it apply to, how does it work in practice?

Presenter: Dr Joelle Grogan

Contributors:

Politically motivated attacks on the legal profession in the UK have led to barristers, solicitors, advocates and judges being subjected to violence, death threats and rape threats. Some have faced threats to their family members.

This is according to the The Bar Council of England and Wales, the Law Society of England and Wales, the Law Society of Scotland, the Faculty of Advocates, the Bar of Northern Ireland and the Law Society of Northern Ireland. These organisations represent a quarter of a million lawyers across the UK, and they have come together to warn about an increasing climate of hostility against legal professionals.

They say that law firms have been targeted by protesters, and they point out that lawyers are not their clients. So how bad has the situation become, and is it threatening justice or even democracy?

Also on the programme:

Presenter: Dr Joelle Grogan

Contributors:

When the Labour government came to power in 2024, it faced a crisis in the criminal courts, with ever-longer delays and a growing backlog of cases.

The Ministry of Justice's budget is now one third higher in real terms than in 2019, but according to the latest figures, crown court cases that are yet to be heard reached a record high of 78,329.

In October, the Justice Secretary David Lammy promised extra funding to increase the number of days that English and Welsh courts will sit next year.

But is throwing money at the problem enough? How can the courts service be improved, and should jury trials be limited to help clear the backlog?

Also in the programme:

Presenter: Dr Joelle Grogan

Contributors:

Immigration has dominated headlines for months, but what UK laws cover this most emotive of issues?

When someone arrives here, what are the legal routes they have to take if they want to stay in the UK? What's the legal difference between an asylum seeker and a refugee? What does "indefinite leave to remain" mean? And what's the difference between being deported, being removed and being extradited?

How do immigration hearings work? Are our immigration laws fit for purpose, and do they enable us to remove people when required?

Also on the programme:

Presenter: Dr Joelle Grogan

Contributors

The phrase “State related deaths” might mean little to the average person, but it's an umbrella term referring to a death in custody or a mental health setting. It also applies to situations when people have taken their own lives while in the armed forces or even to disasters like Grenfell or Hillsborough.

What all these have in common is that they are followed by inquests or public inquiries, where investigators or coroners try to work out what caused the deaths.

Public inquiries are set up to draw conclusions and release their findings, and coroners are required to write a "Prevention of Future Deaths" report when there are lessons to be learned.

Hundreds of these PFD reports are released in England and Wales each year - yet there is no system in place to ensure preventative changes are made.

In Scotland, the equivalent is a Fatal Accident Inquiry. It's held by a procurator fiscal - and not a coroner - in front of a sheriff, and has a wider remit than an inquest. It too, can flag up systemic failures that led to a death, and precautions that should be made in future.

So should the UK have a body that ensures these warnings are heeded?

Also on the programme:

Presenter: Joelle Grogan

Contributors:

The Victims and Courts Bill is progressing through Parliament, and will force convicted criminals to attend their sentencing hearings.

If criminals convicted of the most serious offences in England or Wales refuse to attend, or are disruptive in court, they will face an extra two years in prison. There are other sanctions too, including missing out on family visits.

‘Reasonable force’ can also be used to get criminals to attend.

The families of three women killed in London - Sabina Nessa, Jan Mustafa and Zara Aleena - have been campaigning for a new law. In each case, the men who murdered their loved ones refused to come to their sentencing hearings.

Their families are not alone; the mother of 9 year old Olivia Pratt-Korbel, who was fatally shot in August 2022, has also been calling for a change in the law. The man who murdered her daughter also refused to come to court to be sentenced.

But will the changes improve the court system for the families of victims?

Also on the programme:

Presenter: Joelle Grogan

Contributors