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