Show Notes
Are the Government’s plans to reduce the shameful backlog of some 80,000 cases awaiting trial in the Crown Court built on sand? Is the prediction in Part 1 of Sir Brian Leveson's Independent Review of Criminal Courts reliable?
Ken Macdonald KC and Tim Owen KC are joined by Cassia Rowland. Cassia is a Senior Researcher at the Institute for Government (IFG) and the author of the IFG's Report “Trial and Error? The impact of restricting jury trials on court demand” published on 21st January - https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/publication/judge-only-trials-court-demand-productivity
Cassia's Report provides a critical, data-based analysis of the Lammy proposals to address the Crown Court backlog. She claims the proposed reforms will result in “marginal gains at best” and will not fix the fundamental crisis in the criminal justice system. The Report urges the Government to avoid radical structural changes to the right to jury trial. Instead, it recommends focusing on alternatives, such as investing in court staff, buildings, and technology, rather than experimenting with fundamental rights.
Ken and Tim debate with Cassia the central question: whether restricting the right to a jury trial is the most effective solution to addressing the Crown Court backlog. They delve into the details of the Leveson, Lammy, and IFG reports, and examine whether the IFG's data and modelling provide a more reliable foundation for policy than those used by the Leveson Review.
Finally, the duo discuss the recent Court of Appeal decision in R v Webster & others (https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewca/crim/2026/9?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email). In this case, five Extinction Rebellion protesters unsuccessfully sought to appeal their convictions. They argued that the trial judge wrongly directed the jury that acquitting on the basis of conscience, rather than the law and evidence, might constitute a criminal offence. Is the principle of “jury equity” still alive and well?
--
Covering the critical intersections of politics and law in the UK with expert commentary on high-profile legal cases, political controversies, prisons and sentencing, human rights law, current political events and the shifting landscape of justice and democracy. With in-depth discussions and influential guests, Double Jeopardy is the podcast that uncovers the forces shaping Britain's legal and political future.
What happens when politics and law collide? How do politics shape the law - and when does the law push back? What happens when judicial independence is tested, human rights come under attack, or freedom of expression is challenged? And who really holds power in Britain's legal and political system? Get answers to questions like these weekly on Wednesdays.
Double Jeopardy is presented by Ken Macdonald KC, former Director of Public Prosecutions, and Tim Owen KC, as they break down the legal and political issues in Britain. From high-profile legal cases to the evolving state of British democracy, Double Jeopardy offers expert legal commentary on the most pressing topics in UK law, politics, and human rights.
Ken Macdonald KC served as Director of Public Prosecutions from 2003-2008, shaping modern prosecutorial policy and advocating for the rule of law. He is a former Warden of Wadham College, Oxford, a crossbench member of the House of Lords, and a leading writer, commentator and broadcaster on politics and the rule of law.
Tim Owen KC has been involved in many of the most significant public, criminal and human rights law cases over the past four decades. Both bring unparalleled experience from the frontline of Britain's legal and political landscape.
If you like The Rest Is Politics, Talking Politics, Law Pod UK and Today in Focus, you'll love Double Jeopardy.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
More from Double Jeopardy - UK Law and Politics
On Double Jeopardy, Ken Macdonald KC and Tim Owen KC discuss the announcement on Friday 16th October that the Government had reached an out-of-court settlement with Sir Oliver (Olly) Robbins following his summary dismissal last April by former PM Keir Starmer as the permanent under secretary at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, Head of the Diplomatic Service and the FCDO’s statutory Accounting Officer. According to The Guardian, the settlement included a six-figure sum by way of damages for Robbins’s unlawful dismissal.
Last week’s ruling quashing the search warrants executed on 19th February 2026 at the homes of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor at Sandringham and Royal Lodge in the context of the investigation into alleged offences of misconduct in public office was a major embarrassment for Thames Valley Police. The police accepted that the warrants had been unlawfully issued but who was to blame for the fact that the wrong section of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 was relied on? Thames Valley police claim that “the court was presented with all the necessary information and paperwork”, giving the impression that the error lay with the Judge who issued the warrants at the Old Bailey but the public reasons given by Mr Justice Hilliard (who was not the issuing Judge) did not seek to allocate blame. And despite the admitted illegality, does the law permit the police to retain the seized material if it is relevant to their continuing investigation?
The Conversion Practices Bill was formally announced in the King's Speech in July and confirmed Labour's Manifesto commitment to introduce into UK law a full, trans-inclusive ban on abusive "conversion practices" intended to change or suppress someone's sexual orientation as well as their transgender identity. The short, six-clause Bill was published in draft form on 25th June and is due to commence pre-legislative scrutiny later this month by a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament.
At a High Court hearing on 18th September before the Lady Chief Justice, the President of the King's Bench Division and Lord Justice Chamberlain, the Security Service (MI5) accepted that it gave evidence based on lies to three courts and that senior MI5 officers were repeatedly dishonest while seeking to defend a violent neo-Nazi agent identified as Agent X whose alleged abuse of two women was uncovered by the BBC.
The publication of Lady Justice Thirlwall’s Report of the Public Inquiry into the Events at the Countess of Chester Hospital 2015-2018 (https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/the-report/#Summary-report-on-report-page) has reignited the sharply divided – and almost entirely uninformed - public debate about the safety of Lucy Letby’s convictions on 7 counts of murdering, and 8 counts of attempting to murder, new born babies in the hospital’s neo-natal unit between June 2015 and June 2016.