Democratic arguments and the Salisbury Convention

Does the Judgment of the Court of Appeal in the Palestinian Family case of IA & others v. Home Secretary - https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/IA.MediaSummary.Final_.pdf - indicate that the Judges are submitting to the political pressure to weaken the protection that Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights provides for the concept of “family life”?   

In asserting that the Home Secretary’s policy is a matter for her and for the UK Government; that this was a question of respect for the UK’s law and democratic process; and that the courts must attach considerable weight to the Home Secretary’s immigration policies at a general level, was the Court of Appeal sending a message to immigration and asylum judges that they must adopt a fundamentally different approach when conducting the proportionality balance under Article 8 (2) of the ECHR?  

Ken Macdonald KC and Tim Owen KC debate the political implications of the Court of Appeal’s ruling and question whether it will do anything to persuade Jenrick, Farage and their followers that the ECHR is not the cause of the UK’s problem of illegal migration.  

Ken and Tim then move on to discuss the continuing campaign by a small number of Peers to secure the assisted, filibustered death of Kim Leadbeater’s Assisted Dying Bill.  Is the - apparently co-ordinated - plan to table some 587 amendments to the Bill as approved by the House of Commons a democratic outrage?  Or does the fact that it’s a Private Members’ Bill, to which the Salisbury Convention does not apply, mean that “Kill The Bill” is a legitimate expression of democratic scrutiny of flawed legislation?   

Finally, the duo respond to audience questions, including the thorny issue of whether Irish novelist Sally Rooney’s publishers should withhold her royalties for fear of committing a terrorist financing offence in the wake of her public announcement that she intends to use future royalties from her work to donate to Palestine Action. 

--   

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.