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/