Are the Courts Flinching on Article 8? And Who’s Trying to Kill the Assisted Dying Bill in the House of Lords?

Dec 3, 2025

A recent court judgment raises concerns about the protection of family life under Article 8 of the ECHR, sparking debate over potential political pressures on the judiciary. Ken Macdonald KC and Tim Owen KC explore how this ruling might signal a shift in judicial approach to immigration policies. They also dive into the controversial assisted dying bill facing an aggressive filibuster in the House of Lords, examining whether such tactics are legitimate scrutiny or a misuse of parliamentary procedures. Additionally, pressing governance critiques emerge from a report on data breaches.

Ask episode

AI Snips

Chapters

Transcript

Episode notes

INSIGHT

Stricter Test For Sibling Family Claims

The Court of Appeal raised the bar for Article 8 family claims involving siblings by requiring dependence beyond normal emotional ties.
Judges signalled they will give considerable weight to Home Secretary immigration policy when assessing proportionality.

INSIGHT

Courts Defer More To Political Judgment

The Court of Appeal declared immigration policy a matter for the executive and urged courts to attach considerable weight to it at a general level.
That stance suggests judges may be responsive to wider political concerns about Article 8 interpretation.

INSIGHT

Judges May Ride The Political Wind

Ken MacDonald warned courts can show flexibility and respond to prevailing political winds on Article 8 issues without being overtly political.
He expects more judgments reflecting mainstream European governmental concerns about Article 8.

Get the Snipd Podcast app to discover more snips from this episode

Get the app

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.