Double Jeopardy - The Law and Politics Podcast

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.