Listeners’ Mailbag: Tariffs, Hunger Strikes and Undermining the Parole Board
Double Jeopardy - UK Law and PoliticsShow Notes
In this week’s episode Ken Macdonald KC and Tim Owen KC discuss a wide range of issues affecting UK law and politics and answer some listeners’ questions.
Does Elon Musk’s climbdown over Grok’s image generator represent a victory for online safety campaigners and have Ken and Tim been unfair about Ofcom’s record of enforcing the Online Safety Act ?
Will the US Supreme Court’s imminent ruling in Learning Resources v Trump declare Trump’s unilateral imposition of tariffs without Congressional approval to be unlawful and what would that mean for Trump’s latest threats to impose tariffs on any NATO country opposing his demand to take over Greenland? And is being turned down for the Nobel Peace Prize a good reason to invade a sovereign State ?
The decision of 6 Palestine Action activists to end their hunger strike was greeted with relief by the Ministry of Justice but what were the activists demanding and what is the law concerning the duty of the Prison Service in response to hunger strikes? Ken and Tim explain the fundamental shift in the law from mandatory force feeding of the Suffragettes, as established in the 1909 judgment in Leigh v Gladstone, to the turning point in the ‘70s and 80s involving IRA hunger strikers.
What do recent amendments to the Parole Board’s powers and the Justice Secretary’s new power to direct the Parole Board to refer a release decision in “top-tier” cases to the High Court say about Labour’s approach to sentencing, fairness and respect for judicial independence? See this for a background to the changes - https://www.no5.com/2025/12/the-parole-board-new-powers-and-new-challenges/
Finally, Ken and Tim reflect on the defection of Robert Jenrick to Reform, the record of his replacement as Shadow Justice Secretary, Nick Timothy MP, and the mysterious decision by SFO Director, Nick Ephgrave, to announce his early retirement after only 2 and half years in the job.
--
overing 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.