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?

As political rhetoric in the UK takes an alarming turn, Robert Jenrick’s recent statements link the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) to British soldiers committing unlawful killings abroad. These claims have drawn fierce criticism, with experts warning that such accusations not only distort reality but also endanger military personnel in the field.

In this latest episode of Double Jeopardy, Ken Macdonald and Tim Owen take a deeper look into the risks Jenrick’s assertions pose, not just for the reputation of the UK's armed forces, but for international law and military operations. The conversation also touches on the broader debate about the role of the ECHR and whether Britain should distance itself from the convention altogether.

The pair then shift focus to Naomi Campbell’s charity, Fashion for Relief, which recently has come under intense scrutiny. The Charity Commission’s report has revealed a startling financial mismanagement, where only a small fraction of donations reached the intended causes. With millions raised but minimal impact, Ken and Tim unravel the findings, raising important questions about accountability and transparency in the world of celebrity philanthropy.

Follow us on X/Twitter: https://x.com/doubjeopardypod
Follow us on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/double-jeopardy-podcast/

In the latest episode of Double Jeopardy, Ken Macdonald and Tim Owen are joined by Lord Burnett of Maldon, the former Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, to talk about punishment and the British addiction to prison.

As one of five co-authors of a significant report on the subject (published by the Howard League in September) Lord Burnett shares his insights on the need for change in our approach to sentencing, the challenges within our overcrowded prisons, and the societal implications of the current punitive system. Together, the trio explore key questions such as why prison sentences have doubled in length over the past 50 years, whether longer sentences truly reduce crime, and the impact of political decision-making on our justice system.

Ken and Tim also turn their attention to the damning allegations surrounding the late Mohamed Al-Fayed and the wider implications this case holds for the criminal justice system. This major scandal is just beginning.