Unreliable Evidence

Episodes

SeriesEpisodeTitleFirst
Broadcast
RepeatedComments
19990216

Clive Anderson, grand inquisitor of the stars, returns to demystify the law, with the aid of expert guests.

Each week he cuts through the jargon to get to the heart of an issue which affects anyone who uses the legal system.

19990216

Clive Anderson, grand inquisitor of the stars, returns to demystify the law, with the aid of expert guests.

Each week he cuts through the jargon to get to the heart of an issue which affects anyone who uses the legal system.

19990223

Clive Anderson cuts through the jargon to get to the heart of an issue which affects anyone who uses the legal system.

19990223

Clive Anderson cuts through the jargon to get to the heart of an issue which affects anyone who uses the legal system.

19990309
19990309
19990316
19990316
19990323
19990323
19990330
19990330
19990406
19990406
20000201

Clive Anderson tackles issues affecting anyone using the legal system.

20000201

Clive Anderson tackles issues affecting anyone using the legal system.

20000208
20000208
20000215
20000215
20000222
20000222
20000229
20000229
20000307
20000307
20010227

Clive Anderson gets to the heart of an issue affecting anyone who needs to use the legal system.

20010227

Clive Anderson gets to the heart of an issue affecting anyone who needs to use the legal system.

20010306
20010306
20010313
20010313
20010410
20010410
20010417

Clive Anderson airs topical legal issues.

He is joined by a panel of experts to discuss the origins of - and fundamental differences between - English and Scottish law.

20010417

Clive Anderson airs topical legal issues.

He is joined by a panel of experts to discuss the origins of - and fundamental differences between - English and Scottish law.

20020423

Clive Anderson return with a new series of the programme which demystifies important legal issues.

Senior judges and a leading QC discuss freedom of speech.

20020423

Clive Anderson return with a new series of the programme which demystifies important legal issues.

Senior judges and a leading QC discuss freedom of speech.

20020430

Clive Anderson presents the series that demystifies important legal issues.

This edition examines the issue of the International Criminal Court.

20020430

Clive Anderson presents the series that demystifies important legal issues.

This edition examines the issue of the International Criminal Court.

20020507

Clive Anderson presents the series demystifying legal issues.

Can there only ever be one correct decision in court? A panel of experts including Lord Bingham debate the issue.

20020507

Clive Anderson presents the series demystifying legal issues.

Can there only ever be one correct decision in court? A panel of experts including Lord Bingham debate the issue.

20020514

Clive Anderson presents the series that demystifies legal issues.

Guests including Clare Montgomery QC and Lord Justice Mantell discuss the barrister's central skill of advocacy.

20020514

Clive Anderson presents the series that demystifies legal issues.

Guests including Clare Montgomery QC and Lord Justice Mantell discuss the barrister's central skill of advocacy.

20020521

Clive Anderson presents the series that demystifies important legal issues.

This edition examines the role of the coroner's court.

20020521

Clive Anderson presents the series that demystifies important legal issues.

This edition examines the role of the coroner's court.

20020604

Clive Anderson presents the series that demystifies important legal issues.

This edition examines the Auld Review on the future of criminal justice.

20020604

Clive Anderson presents the series that demystifies important legal issues.

This edition examines the Auld Review on the future of criminal justice.

20020611

Clive Anderson presents the series that demystifies important legal issues.

This edition asks whether the judiciary is becoming politicised.

20020611

Clive Anderson presents the series that demystifies important legal issues.

This edition asks whether the judiciary is becoming politicised.

20040420

3/4. Mental Health and the Law.

The law treats those with mental disabilities quite differently from those who are physically disabled. Are these discrepancies just? To what extent does, or should, the law take it upon itself to make decisions for those whom it deems unable to do so for themselves?

Presented by Clive Anderson.

3/4. Mental Health and the Law.

The law treats those with mental disabilities quite differently from those who are physically disabled. Are these discrepancies just? To what extent does, or should, the law take it upon itself to make decisions for those whom it deems unable to do so for themselves?

Presented by Clive Anderson.

20040504

5/8. Clive Anderson presents the series looking at key legal issues. Today he is joined by four eminent members of the legal profession to discuss diplomatic and state immunity. [Rptd tonight 9.30pm]

5/8. Clive Anderson is joined by four eminent members of the legal profession to discuss diplomatic and state immunity. [Rpt of today 9.00am]

20040511

The Legacy Of Lord Denning: Clive Anderson and a panel of guests examine the legacy of one of the most controversial judges of the 20th Century. [Rpt of today 9.00am]

The Legacy Of Lord Denning: Clive Anderson and a panel of guests examine the legacy of one of the most controversial judges of the 20th Century, 5 years on from his death. [Rptd tonight 9.30pm]

20050405

Clive Anderson presents the series looking at key legal issues.

Courts Martial: Is the court martial system fair or is it an oppressive (or perhaps too lenient) charade? How far can it be said to be independent or impartial? Why do we need a separate system of military justice today? What is its relevance in an era of modern warfare and instant communications where any British military base is only hours away by air?

Courts Martial

Is the court martial system fair or is it an oppressive (or perhaps too lenient) charade? How far can it be said to be independent or impartial? Why do we need a separate system of military justice today? What is its relevance in an era of modern warfare and instant communications where any British military base is only hours away by air?

20050405

Clive Anderson presents the series looking at key legal issues.

Courts Martial: Is the court martial system fair or is it an oppressive (or perhaps too lenient) charade? How far can it be said to be independent or impartial? Why do we need a separate system of military justice today? What is its relevance in an era of modern warfare and instant communications where any British military base is only hours away by air?

Courts Martial

Is the court martial system fair or is it an oppressive (or perhaps too lenient) charade? How far can it be said to be independent or impartial? Why do we need a separate system of military justice today? What is its relevance in an era of modern warfare and instant communications where any British military base is only hours away by air?

Courts Martial

Clive Anderson presents the series looking at key legal issues.

Is the court martial system fair or is it an oppressive (or perhaps too lenient) charade? How far can it be said to be independent or impartial? Why do we need a separate system of military justice today? What is its relevance in an era of modern warfare and instant communications where any British military base is only hours away by air?

Clive Anderson presents the series looking at key legal issues.

Courts Martial: Is the court martial system fair or is it an oppressive (or perhaps too lenient) charade? How far can it be said to be independent or impartial? Why do we need a separate system of military justice today? What is its relevance in an era of modern warfare and instant communications where any British military base is only hours away by air?

20050412

Do Judges Declare the Law or Do they Make It?

This Radio 4 flagship law programme continues with Clive Anderson and eminent guests discussing the constitutional role of judges in Britain's legal system. Do they simply declare the law as it exists, or do they actually make the law for future generations? In either case, how much discretion do they have, what principles form the basis of their decisions, and is that role changing?

Do Judges Declare the Law or Do they Make It?

This Radio 4 flagship law programme continues with Clive Anderson and eminent guests discussing the constitutional role of judges in Britain's legal system. Do they simply declare the law as it exists, or do they actually make the law for future generations? In either case, how much discretion do they have, what principles form the basis of their decisions, and is that role changing?

20050419

Transsexual People and the Law

The flagship law programme continues with Clive Anderson and eminent guests discussing how transsexuality is treated under English law. On 4 April, the Gender Recognition Act came into force. What was the impetus behind the Act, and how does this change life for transsexual people? What are the implications for employment, marriage and sports law? And what issues of sex discrimination and privacy arise?

Transsexual People and the Law

The flagship law programme continues with Clive Anderson and eminent guests discussing how transsexuality is treated under English law. On 4 April, the Gender Recognition Act came into force. What was the impetus behind the Act, and how does this change life for transsexual people? What are the implications for employment, marriage and sports law? And what issues of sex discrimination and privacy arise?

20050426

This edition discusses the question of legal privilege.

20050426

This edition discusses the question of legal privilege.

Clive Anderson presents the series looking at key legal issues. This edition discusses the question of legal privilege. [Rptd tonight 9.30pm]

Clive Anderson presents the series looking at key legal issues. This edition discusses the question of legal privilege. [Rpt of today at 9.00am].

20050503

This edition discusses the court martial system.

Why do we need a separate system of military justice today?

20050503

This edition discusses the court martial system.

Why do we need a separate system of military justice today?

Clive Anderson presents the series looking at key legal issues. This edition discusses the court martial system. Why do we need a separate system of military justice today? [Rptd today 9.30pm]

Clive Anderson presents the series looking at key legal issues. This edition discusses the court martial system. [Rpt of today at 9.00am].

20050517

Clive Anderson presents the series looking at key legal issues.

This edition looks at the EU constitution and the implications for UK law if implemented.

Speculation about the fate of the EU Constitution is increasing as France's referendum approaches.

If the EU Constitution survives the French vote at the end of May, what will its ratification mean for UK law? Does the EU Constitution, in fact, create and confer new powers or is it merely a restatement of existing law?

What are its implications for our own constitution, for judicial decision-making and for those who find themselves in court?

20050517

Clive Anderson presents the series looking at key legal issues.

This edition looks at the EU constitution and the implications for UK law if implemented.

Speculation about the fate of the EU Constitution is increasing as France's referendum approaches.

If the EU Constitution survives the French vote at the end of May, what will its ratification mean for UK law? Does the EU Constitution, in fact, create and confer new powers or is it merely a restatement of existing law?

What are its implications for our own constitution, for judicial decision-making and for those who find themselves in court?

Clive Anderson presents the series looking at key legal issues. This edition looks at the EU constitution and the implications for UK law if implemented.

Speculation about the fate of the EU Constitution is increasing as France's referendum approaches. If the EU Constitution survives the French vote at the end of May, what will its ratification mean for UK law? Does the EU Constitution, in fact, create and confer new powers or is it merely a restatement of existing law?

What are its implications for our own constitution, for judicial decision-making and for those who find themselves in court?.

Clive Anderson presents the series looking at key legal issues. This edition looks at the EU constitution and the implications for UK law if implemented.

Speculation about the fate of the EU Constitution is increasing as France's referendum approaches. If the EU Constitution survives the French vote at the end of May, what will its ratification mean for UK law? Does the EU Constitution, in fact, create and confer new powers or is it merely a restatement of existing law?

What are its implications for our own constitution, for judicial decision-making and for those who find themselves in court?

20050524

Clive Anderson presents the series looking at key legal issues.

He discusses the use of special advocates.

Two special advocates resigned following the dramatic judgement of the House of Lords in the Belmarsh case.

Why? Can the use of special advocates ever be defended on the grounds of national security? How is the use of special advocates compatible with an individual's right to a fair hearing, either in criminal or in civil proceedings?

20050524

Clive Anderson presents the series looking at key legal issues.

He discusses the use of special advocates.

Two special advocates resigned following the dramatic judgement of the House of Lords in the Belmarsh case.

Why? Can the use of special advocates ever be defended on the grounds of national security? How is the use of special advocates compatible with an individual's right to a fair hearing, either in criminal or in civil proceedings?

20050531

Clive Anderson and his guests discuss whether the transmission of disease should be a criminal offence.

Recently, there have been prosecutions under the Offences against the Person Act 1861 for the transmission of HIV.

Should the transmission of a life-threatening disease constitute a criminal offence? Must there be intent, or even recklessness? Is HIV a special case? If so, why, and what are the repercussions?

20050531

Clive Anderson and his guests discuss whether the transmission of disease should be a criminal offence.

Recently, there have been prosecutions under the Offences against the Person Act 1861 for the transmission of HIV.

Should the transmission of a life-threatening disease constitute a criminal offence? Must there be intent, or even recklessness? Is HIV a special case? If so, why, and what are the repercussions?

Clive Anderson and his guests discuss whether the transmission of disease should be a criminal offence. Recently, there have been prosecutions under the Offences against the Person Act 1861 for the transmission of HIV. Should the transmission of a life-threatening disease constitute a criminal offence? Must there be intent, or even recklessness? Is HIV a special case? If so, why, and what are the repercussions?

Clive Anderson and his guests discuss whether the transmission of disease should be a criminal offence. Recently, there have been prosecutions under the Offences against the Person Act 1861 for the transmission of HIV. Should the transmission of a life-threatening disease constitute a criminal offence? Must there be intent, or even recklessness? Is HIV a special case? If so, why, and what are the repercussions?

20060411

Clive Anderson returns with Radio 4's flagship law programme, which analyses and debates the legal issues.

Inadmissible Evidence

Should a murder trial jury hear evidence of a defendant's violent and abusive past? Would knowing about a defendant's criminal record make a jury more likely to convict? A judge, a barrister, a policeman and a psychologist discuss.

Clive Anderson returns with Radio 4's flagship law programme, which analyses and debates legal issues.

Inadmissible Evidence

Should a murder trial jury hear evidence of a defendant's violent or abusive past? Would knowing about a defendant's criminal record make a jury more likely to convict? Bruce Houlder QC, Professor Sally Lloyd-Bostock, Chief Superintendent Ian Johnston and Lord Justice Alan Moses discuss the issue of inadmissible evidence.

Clive Anderson returns with Radio 4's flagship law programme, which analyses and debates legal issues.

Inadmissible Evidence

Should a murder trial jury hear evidence of a defendant's violent or abusive past? Would knowing about a defendant's criminal record make a jury more likely to convict? Bruce Houlder QC, Professor Sally Lloyd-Bostock, Chief Superintendent Ian Johnston and Lord Justice Alan Moses discuss the issue of inadmissible evidence.

Clive Anderson presents the series looking at legal issues.

Inadmissible Evidence

Should a murder trial jury hear evidence of a defendant's violent and abusive past? Would knowing about a defendant's criminal record make a jury more likely to convict? A judge, a barrister, a policeman and a psychologist discuss.

20060418

Clive Anderson presents the series looking at legal issues.

International Law

Since the Second World War, Britain and the US have been at the forefront of developing international law, governing such disparate areas as war, trade, the environment and human rights.

But how much have these global agreements been damaged by events such as Guantanamo Bay and the Iraq War? Leading international lawyer Philippe Sands and former US State Department legal adviser William H Taft are among the guests debating the future of international law.

Clive Anderson presents the series looking at legal issues.

International Law

Since the Second World War, Britain and the US have been at the forefront of developing international law, governing such disparate areas as war, trade, the environment and human rights.

But how much have these global agreements been damaged by events such as Guantanamo Bay and the Iraq War? Leading international lawyer Philippe Sands and former US State Department legal adviser William H Taft are among the guests debating the future of international law.

20060425

Clive Anderson presents the series looking at legal issues.

Convicting Sex Offenders

The conviction rate of defendants charged with rape or other sexual offences is at an all time low. Research suggests ignorance and prejudice are still widespread among judges, juries and prosecutors. The Director of Public Prosecutions, Ken Macdonald, and other leading experts, discuss the need for changes in the legal system to reduce the number of acquittals.

Clive Anderson presents the series looking at legal issues.

Convicting Sex Offenders

The conviction rate of defendants charged with rape or other sexual offences is at an all time low. Research suggests ignorance and prejudice are still widespread among judges, juries and prosecutors. The Director of Public Prosecutions, Ken Macdonald, and other leading experts, discuss the need for changes in the legal system to reduce the number of acquittals.

20060502

Clive Anderson presents the series looking at legal issues.

Human Rights, Five Years On

The Human Rights Act has been criticised for everything from fuelling a compensation culture to protecting the right of serial murderers to have access to pornography. Five years on from its incorporation into English law, has it advanced the rights of citizens, or have important social rights been sidelined by the Act?

A panel of legal experts considers the current state of human rights.

Clive Anderson presents the series looking at legal issues.

Human Rights, Five Years On

The Human Rights Act has been criticised for everything from fuelling a compensation culture to protecting the right of serial murderers to have access to pornography. Five years on from its incorporation into English law, has it advanced the rights of citizens, or have important social rights been sidelined by the Act?

A panel of legal experts considers the current state of human rights.

20060509

Clive Anderson presents the series looking at legal issues.

A Supreme Court for the UK

The Law Lords are to be removed from their historic home in the House of Lords and placed in a new highest court in the land - the Supreme Court. But could (or should) a new court mean new powers? As our unwritten constitution evolves and senior judges are increasingly required to decide matters of policy, might they eventually challenge the very sovereignty of Parliament? Or is it all just an expensive cosmetic exercise?

Clive Anderson presents the series looking at legal issues.

A Supreme Court for the UK

The Law Lords are to be removed from their historic home in the House of Lords and placed in a new highest court in the land - the Supreme Court. But could (or should) a new court mean new powers? As our unwritten constitution evolves and senior judges are increasingly required to decide matters of policy, might they eventually challenge the very sovereignty of Parliament? Or is it all just an expensive cosmetic exercise?

20060516

Clive Anderson presents the series looking at legal issues.

A Criminal Code

Criminal law in Britain is based on a huge jumble of statutory and common law, some of which goes back to the 17th Century. Many criticise it as being incoherent and inconsistent. The law relating to murder, for example, is seen as confusing and unfair, needing to be adapted on a case by case basis.

Should we not, like every other nation in Europe, have a clear, authoritative, modern written statement of our criminal law - a criminal code? Or would that now create more problems than it solves?

Clive Anderson presents the series looking at legal issues.

A Criminal Code

Criminal law in Britain is based on a huge jumble of statutory and common law, some of which goes back to the 17th Century. Many criticise it as being incoherent and inconsistent. The law relating to murder, for example, is seen as confusing and unfair, needing to be adapted on a case by case basis.

Should we not, like every other nation in Europe, have a clear, authoritative, modern written statement of our criminal law - a criminal code? Or would that now create more problems than it solves?

20060523

Divorce in the 21st Century

Do our divorce laws fail to reflect the realities of modern life? Do they create a lottery resulting in injustice, suffering and personal damage to parents and children alike?

A senior judge and other legal experts discuss equality in the divorce courts, pre-nuptial agreements and the legal pitfalls of co-habitation.

With Clive Anderson.

Divorce in the 21st Century

Do our divorce laws fail to reflect the realities of modern life? Do they create a lottery resulting in injustice, suffering and damage to parents and children alike?

A senior judge and other legal experts discuss equality in the divorce courts, pre-nuptial agreements and the legal pitfalls of co-habitation.

With Clive Anderson.

20060530

Presented by Clive Anderson.

Foreign Law

English common law has evolved over some 350 years, with judges basing their decisions on those made by predecessors. But while we have successfully exported our legal system around the world, our own courts have been reluctant to take account of decisions made by foreign judges.

Is our law simply the best in the world, or might we improve upon our ancient legal doctrines by looking beyond our borders? Does our insularity work against the interests of ordinary litigants or is it just the best way of ensuring justice?

Presented by Clive Anderson.

Foreign Law

English common law has evolved over some 350 years, with judges basing their decisions on those made by predecessors. But while we have successfully exported our legal system around the world, our own courts have been reluctant to take account of decisions made by foreign judges.

Is our law simply the best in the world, or might we improve upon our ancient legal doctrines by looking beyond our borders? Does our insularity work against the interests of ordinary litigants or is it just the best way of ensuring justice?

2007051620070519

Clive Anderson presents the series analysing the legal issues of the day.

1/4. Sentencing

An increase in gun and knife crime has brought inevitable calls for tougher sentences to deter violent criminals. But there is little evidence of any real correlation between the severity of sentencing and the incidence of crime. A panel of senior judges, lawyers and academics debate the options open to the courts.

Clive Anderson presents the series analysing the legal issues of the day.

1/4. Sentencing

An increase in gun and knife crime has brought inevitable calls for tougher sentences to deter violent criminals. But there is little evidence of any real correlation between the severity of sentencing and the incidence of crime. A panel of senior judges, lawyers and academics debate the options open to the courts.

2007052320070526

Clive Anderson presents the series analysing the legal issues of the day.

2/6. Internet Law.

The internet has enriched our lives in many ways, but it has also generated many ways to break the law. How well does our legal system protect us from the dangers of being libelled, defrauded, having our intellectual property stolen or being exposed to pornography or violent images? A panel of senior judges, barristers and academics identify the shortcomings of the law and discuss possible solutions.

Clive Anderson presents the series analysing the legal issues of the day.

2/6. Internet Law

The internet has enriched our lives in many ways, but it has also generated many ways to break the law. How well does our legal system protect us from the dangers of being libelled, defrauded, having our intellectual property stolen or being exposed to pornography or violent images?

A panel of senior judges, barristers and academics identify the shortcomings of the law and discuss possible solutions.

2007053020070602

Clive Anderson presents the series analysing the legal issues of the day.

3/6. The Attorney General

Is the post of Attorney General compatible with that of a senior politician? Lord Goldsmith's advice to the government has sometimes attracted considerable criticism, even from within his own party. Should the job be done by someone entirely independent of politics, and all advice be made public? Lord Goldsmith himself joins a panel of critics and supporters to discuss the arguments.

Clive Anderson presents the series analysing the legal issues of the day.

3/6. The Attorney General

Is the post of Attorney General compatible with that of a senior politician? Lord Goldsmith's advice to the government has sometimes attracted considerable criticism, even from within his own party. Should the job be done by someone entirely independent of politics, and all advice be made public? Lord Goldsmith himself joins a panel of critics and supporters to discuss the arguments.

2007060620070609

Clive Anderson presents the series analysing the legal issues of the day.

4/4. Appointing the Judges

A new Judicial Appointments Commission was set up a year ago to choose the next generation of judges in England and Wales.This independent body is looking for candidates from outside the traditional white middle-class gene pool, but is committed to appointing purely on merit. Why do we need a new selection process and is anything changing?

Clive Anderson presents the series analysing the legal issues of the day.

4/4. Appointing the Judges

A new Judicial Appointments Commission was set up a year ago to choose the next generation of judges in England and Wales.This independent body is looking for candidates from outside the traditional white middle-class gene pool, but is committed to appointing purely on merit. Why do we need a new selection process and is anything changing?

2007112820071201

Clive Anderson presents the series analysing the legal issues of the day.

1/4. Asylum Seekers

The way we treat asylum seekers is seen as a measure of our commitment to defending victims of violence and persecution wherever it occurs. Do our courts offer enough protection to those fleeing oppression? Senior lawyers and politicians discuss allegations that Britain often fails to provide sanctuary to those who need it most.

Clive Anderson presents the series analysing the legal issues of the day.

1/4. Asylum Seekers

The way we treat asylum seekers is seen as a measure of our commitment to defending victims of violence and persecution wherever it occurs. Do our courts offer enough protection to those fleeing oppression? Senior lawyers and politicians discuss allegations that Britain often fails to provide sanctuary to those who need it most.

2007120520071208

Clive Anderson presents the series analysing the legal issues of the day.

2/4. Legal Aid

Cutbacks in the Government's legal aid budget have led to warnings that many vulnerable people are not able to get legal advice or proper representation and that this is resulting in injustices. Key figures in the debate discuss demands for greater funding and the fairer distribution of the existing budget.

Clive Anderson presents the series analysing the legal issues of the day.

2/4. Legal Aid

Cutbacks in the Government's legal aid budget have led to warnings that many vulnerable people are not able to get legal advice or proper representation and that this is resulting in injustices. Key figures in the debate discuss demands for greater funding and the fairer distribution of the existing budget.

2007121220071215

Clive Anderson presents the series analysing the legal issues of the day.

3/4. There is concern that it is easy for British citizens to be dragged into foreign courts, yet almost impossible to extradite people from other countries to face trial over here. Lawyers involved in high-profile cases of Britons accused of committing crimes in the US discuss the issue.

Clive Anderson presents the series analysing the legal issues of the day.

3/4. There is concern that it is easy for British citizens to be dragged into foreign courts, yet almost impossible to extradite people from other countries to face trial over here. Lawyers involved in high-profile cases of Britons accused of committing crimes in the US discuss the issue.

2007121920071222

Clive Anderson presents the series analysing the legal issues of the day.

4/4. Youth Justice

Record numbers of young people are currently being held in custody, with children as young as ten being brought to court for offences as trivial as stealing half a sausage roll or a marble. Police stand accused of targeting young offenders in order to enhance their arrest figures. Key figures involved discuss concerns that the system is in crisis and in need of a complete overhaul.

Clive Anderson presents the series analysing the legal issues of the day.

4/4. Youth Justice

Record numbers of young people are currently being held in custody, with children as young as ten being brought to court for offences as trivial as stealing half a sausage roll or a marble. Police stand accused of targeting young offenders in order to enhance their arrest figures. Key figures involved discuss concerns that the system is in crisis and in need of a complete overhaul.

2008043020080503

Clive Anderson presents the series analysing the legal issues of the day.

1/4. The Laws of War

Our armed forces no longer have exclusive power to try and punish their own. In a series of high-profile cases over recent years, troops in action in Afghanistan and Iraq have had their actions scrutinised in ordinary British civil courts. What legal standards should be applied to troops in the line of fire?

Clive Anderson presents the series analysing the legal issues of the day.

1/4. The Laws of War

Our armed forces no longer have exclusive power to try and punish their own. In a series of high-profile cases over recent years, troops in action in Afghanistan and Iraq have had their actions scrutinised in ordinary British civil courts. What legal standards should be applied to troops in the line of fire?

2008050720080510

Clive Anderson presents the series analysing the legal issues of the day.

2/4. Litigants in Person

The decision by Heather Mills to represent herself during her recent divorce from Sir Paul McCartney drew attention to a growing problem in the courts system. A panel of senior judges, a leading QC and Dave Morris, who represented himself in the McLibel case against McDonald's, discuss the advantages and disadvantages of going solo in the courtroom.

Clive Anderson presents the series analysing the legal issues of the day.

2/4. Litigants in Person

The decision by Heather Mills to represent herself during her recent divorce from Sir Paul McCartney drew attention to a growing problem in the courts system. A panel of senior judges, a leading QC and Dave Morris, who represented himself in the McLibel case against McDonald's, discuss the advantages and disadvantages of going solo in the courtroom.

20080514

Clive Anderson presents the series analysing the legal issues of the day.

3/4. Plea Bargaining

Plea bargaining is ingrained in the US legal system but occurs only informally in our courts. What would we gain or lose by adopting a formal system over here? Should it be extended beyond fraud cases or might it lead to innocent people pleading guilty to avoid the risk of lengthy sentences at the end of a trial? Senior lawyers from both sides of the Atlantic discuss the issues.

2008052120080524

Clive Anderson presents the series analysing the legal issues of the day.

4/4. Bail

Almost one in five murder suspects in Britain last year were alleged to have committed the offence while on bail. Similar statistics have emerged for a whole range of serious crimes. Should the courts tighten up on granting bail in order to protect the public or would this compromise a defendant's right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty?

Clive Anderson presents the series analysing the legal issues of the day.

4/4. Bail

Almost one in five murder suspects in Britain last year were alleged to have committed the offence while on bail. Similar statistics have emerged for a whole range of serious crimes. Should the courts tighten up on granting bail in order to protect the public or would this compromise a defendant's right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty?

20100407

Clive Anderson brings together some of the country's top judges and lawyers to discuss the legal issues of the day.

The first programme explores the often controversial interface between English law and religious belief.

Disputes in which articles of faith clash with the law of the land have arisen over the carrying of sacred knives, employment law, adoption, gay rights and cremation.

One of the first acts of the new Supreme Court was to rule that one of Britain's most successful faith schools had racially discriminated against a 12-year-old boy who was refused admission because the school did not recognise him as Jewish.

And the Government's attempts to strengthen the country's equalities legislation provoked the Pope to call on bishops to fight measures which could force churches to hire homosexual and transgender employees.

When individuals choose to have their disputes resolved in religious courts, such as Sharia or Beth Din, what kind of oversight should the secular courts of the United Kingdom exercise?

This programme explores the extent to which secular law accommodates the irrationality" of religious belief.

Should it be more accommodating as the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams has suggested?

The producer is Brian King.

This is an Above the Title production for BBC Radio 4.

Clive Anderson explores the controversial interface between the law and religion."

20100407

Clive Anderson brings together some of the country's top judges and lawyers to discuss the legal issues of the day.

The first programme explores the often controversial interface between English law and religious belief.

Disputes in which articles of faith clash with the law of the land have arisen over the carrying of sacred knives, employment law, adoption, gay rights and cremation.

One of the first acts of the new Supreme Court was to rule that one of Britain's most successful faith schools had racially discriminated against a 12-year-old boy who was refused admission because the school did not recognise him as Jewish.

And the Government's attempts to strengthen the country's equalities legislation provoked the Pope to call on bishops to fight measures which could force churches to hire homosexual and transgender employees.

When individuals choose to have their disputes resolved in religious courts, such as Sharia or Beth Din, what kind of oversight should the secular courts of the United Kingdom exercise?

This programme explores the extent to which secular law accommodates the irrationality" of religious belief.

Should it be more accommodating as the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams has suggested?

The producer is Brian King.

This is an Above the Title production for BBC Radio 4.

Clive Anderson explores the controversial interface between the law and religion."

2012041120120414

Clive Anderson asks if UK planning laws are failing to prevent unnecessary development.

Clive Anderson and guests discuss whether our planning law strikes the right balance between encouraging economic growth and the protection of human rights and the environment. Top lawyers and planning law experts examine concerns that the Government has tilted the playing field in favour of the interests of developers.

Planning law determines if our neighbour can build a single extension or whether a £33bn high speed rail network slicing through swathes of English countryside can go ahead. It controls where, and how many, houses are built, where gypsies can camp, and where wind farms or nuclear power stations are sited.

But does this law provide individuals and communities with enough protection from unwanted or un-needed development? Does the Government's proposed National Planning Policy Framework effectively give an automatic green light to development, opening up the prospect of a free-for-all for building on green field land and less restriction on the density of housing development? Or has the removal of regional planning authorities given too much power to the NIMBYs? Is the Government creating a chaotic planning framework in which only lawyers are likely to benefit?

Producer: Brian King

A Above The Title production for BBC Radio 4.

2012041120120414

Clive Anderson asks if UK planning laws are failing to prevent unnecessary development.

Clive Anderson and guests discuss whether our planning law strikes the right balance between encouraging economic growth and the protection of human rights and the environment. Top lawyers and planning law experts examine concerns that the Government has tilted the playing field in favour of the interests of developers.

Planning law determines if our neighbour can build a single extension or whether a £33bn high speed rail network slicing through swathes of English countryside can go ahead. It controls where, and how many, houses are built, where gypsies can camp, and where wind farms or nuclear power stations are sited.

But does this law provide individuals and communities with enough protection from unwanted or un-needed development? Does the Government's proposed National Planning Policy Framework effectively give an automatic green light to development, opening up the prospect of a free-for-all for building on green field land and less restriction on the density of housing development? Or has the removal of regional planning authorities given too much power to the NIMBYs? Is the Government creating a chaotic planning framework in which only lawyers are likely to benefit?

Producer: Brian King

A Above The Title production for BBC Radio 4.

Clive Anderson and guests discuss whether our planning law strikes the right balance between encouraging economic growth and the protection of human rights and the environment. Top lawyers and planning law experts examine concerns that the Government has tilted the playing field in favour of the interests of developers.

Planning law determines if our neighbour can build a single extension or whether a £33bn high speed rail network slicing through swathes of English countryside can go ahead. It controls where, and how many, houses are built, where gypsies can camp, and where wind farms or nuclear power stations are sited.

But does this law provide individuals and communities with enough protection from unwanted or un-needed development? Does the Government's proposed National Planning Policy Framework effectively give an automatic green light to development, opening up the prospect of a free-for-all for building on green field land and less restriction on the density of housing development? Or has the removal of regional planning authorities given too much power to the NIMBYs? Is the Government creating a chaotic planning framework in which only lawyers are likely to benefit?

Producer: Brian King

A Above The Title production for BBC Radio 4.

Clive Anderson asks if UK planning laws are failing to prevent unnecessary development.

20130102

2013010220130105

Clive Anderson and top lawyers and judges reveal why the wheels of our legal system turn so slowly and discuss concerns that Government proposals to speed up proceedings in our criminal courts could lead to injustices.

The president of the Law Society, Lucy Scott-Moncrieff, strongly opposes plans for weekend courts and to extend court hours, warning that such measures would be expensive and ineffective.

Deputy chair of the Magistrates Association, Richard Monkhouse says delays in the criminal courts, which often result in defendants spending months in custody, could be addressed by giving magistrates greater sentencing powers.

Retired appeal court judge, Sir Mark Potter, predicts that legal aid cuts will result in major delays in the civil courts. He says a shortage of resources is causing particular problems in the family courts where delays have serious impacts on children's lives.

The programme also considers the arguments for reforming the appeal system, following comments from the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, who expressed "fury" over cases such as that of Abu Hamza which take many years to resolve.

Producer: Brian King

An Above the Title production for BBC Radio 4.

20130522

In the first of a new series, Clive Anderson and senior lawyers, judges and other legal experts explore the chaotic state of the law affecting unmarried cohabiting couples and expose the 'myth' of common law marriage.

With a rising trend in cohabitation and an increase in the number of adults and children left in poverty after relationship breakdowns, many people are calling for reform of the law. They argue that the law affecting unmarried cohabiting couples is full of internal contradictions and arbitrary distinctions.

There are over four million co-habiting couples in England and Wales. Research suggests that most of them think the law, broadly speaking, affords them the same protection as married couples. It would seem they could not be more wrong.

In January of this year, Court of Appeal judge Lord Justice Toulson said a woman who lost her home and business when she split from her partner of more than three decades was a victim of sexist property laws.

This programme debates the wide gap between the way the law treats those who are married and those living together, and examines conflicting arguments about the need for reform.

Producer: Brian King

An Above The Title production for BBC Radio 4.

2016083120160903 (R4)

In the first of a new series, Clive Anderson hosts a lively discussion about how the law addresses the conflicting interests of humans and animals.

In the wake of attempts by lawyers in the US to create "legal personhood" for chimpanzees, guaranteeing them a right to freedom, Unreliable Evidence asks if animals have enough protection in law - as pets, in the food industry, in medical trials and in the entertainment and sports worlds. Ten years after the Animal Welfare Act was introduced, is the law in this area working, and is it now time to introduce animal rights, along broadly the same lines as human rights?

Clive's guests include animal welfare lawyers, including the US attorney Steve Wise who is spearheading attempts to break down what he describes as the wall between those who have rights and those who don't, and lawyers who act for the Countryside Alliance, farmers, the meat industry and even for a lion-tamer.

The programme considers how well the law reflects growing scientific understanding of animal intelligence and their ability to suffer, whether the law strikes the right balance between the interests of animals and the commercial interests which humans have in animals, and if future generations might look back at how we treat animals today in much the same way as we now view slavery.

And what would be the consequences for society if there were major changes in law? Would the legal floodgates open if courts accepted that certain higher apes should be granted similar rights to humans?

Other programmes in the series look at the Law and Violence, The Legal Implications of Brexit and the Law and Prisoners.

Producer: Brian King

An Above The Title production for BBC Radio 4.

Clive Anderson and guests discuss the arguments over greater legal protection for animals.

2016083120160903 (R4)

In the first of a new series, Clive Anderson hosts a lively discussion about how the law addresses the conflicting interests of humans and animals.

In the wake of attempts by lawyers in the US to create "legal personhood" for chimpanzees, guaranteeing them a right to freedom, Unreliable Evidence asks if animals have enough protection in law - as pets, in the food industry, in medical trials and in the entertainment and sports worlds. Ten years after the Animal Welfare Act was introduced, is the law in this area working, and is it now time to introduce animal rights, along broadly the same lines as human rights?

Clive's guests include animal welfare lawyers, including the US attorney Steve Wise who is spearheading attempts to break down what he describes as the wall between those who have rights and those who don't, and lawyers who act for the Countryside Alliance, farmers, the meat industry and even for a lion-tamer.

The programme considers how well the law reflects growing scientific understanding of animal intelligence and their ability to suffer, whether the law strikes the right balance between the interests of animals and the commercial interests which humans have in animals, and if future generations might look back at how we treat animals today in much the same way as we now view slavery.

And what would be the consequences for society if there were major changes in law? Would the legal floodgates open if courts accepted that certain higher apes should be granted similar rights to humans?

Other programmes in the series look at the Law and Violence, The Legal Implications of Brexit and the Law and Prisoners.

Producer: Brian King

An Above The Title production for BBC Radio 4.

In the first of a new series, Clive Anderson hosts a lively discussion about how the law addresses the conflicting interests of humans and animals.

In the wake of attempts by lawyers in the US to create "legal personhood" for chimpanzees, guaranteeing them a right to freedom, Unreliable Evidence asks if animals have enough protection in law - as pets, in the food industry, in medical trials and in the entertainment and sports worlds. Ten years after the Animal Welfare Act was introduced, is the law in this area working, and is it now time to introduce animal rights, along broadly the same lines as human rights?

Clive's guests include animal welfare lawyers, including the US attorney Steve Wise who is spearheading attempts to break down what he describes as the wall between those who have rights and those who don't, and lawyers who act for the Countryside Alliance, farmers, the meat industry and even for a lion-tamer.

The programme considers how well the law reflects growing scientific understanding of animal intelligence and their ability to suffer, whether the law strikes the right balance between the interests of animals and the commercial interests which humans have in animals, and if future generations might look back at how we treat animals today in much the same way as we now view slavery.

And what would be the consequences for society if there were major changes in law? Would the legal floodgates open if courts accepted that certain higher apes should be granted similar rights to humans?

Other programmes in the series look at the Law and Violence, The Legal Implications of Brexit and the Law and Prisoners.

Producer: Brian King

An Above The Title production for BBC Radio 4.

Clive Anderson and guests discuss the arguments over greater legal protection for animals.

2016090720160910 (R4)

Do we have the laws we need to tackle violence in our society? Recent crime statistics reveal a disturbing 27 per-cent increase in violent crime. Clive Anderson asks a panel of leading lawyers how changes to the law might help tackle the problem.

The programme looks at Law Commission proposals to sweep away archaic laws and introduce new categories of violent crime which would be simpler to understand and create more effective charging and sentencing options. It's also suggested that magistrates be allowed powers to jail violent offenders for longer periods.

Clive and his guests discuss particular concerns about domestic violence, exploring arguments that recent changes in the law relating to psychological abuse and coercive behaviour are inadequate and ineffective.

Outlining the Law Commission's proposals, Professor David Ormerod explains that they are designed to sweep away outdated, incoherent and ineffective laws and achieve quicker, better and cheaper justice.

Barrister and academic Susan Edwards says it may be difficult to produce the necessary evidence to achieve convictions in domestic violence cases involving coercive behaviour. And she complains that the Law Commission has not attempted to improve the law relating to strangulation, a common element of domestic violence.

Magistrates Association chairman Malcolm Richards agrees that allegations of coercive behaviour may be difficult to prove in court and says he and his colleagues are waiting for guidance on how to deal with such cases.

Francis FitzGibbon QC, the new chair of the Criminal Bar Association, doubts the Law Commission proposals will make much difference and argues strongly that magistrates sentencing powers should not be increased.

Producer: Brian King

An Above The Title production for BBC Radio 4.

Clive Anderson and guests discuss proposals to reform our laws on violence.

2016090720160910 (R4)

Do we have the laws we need to tackle violence in our society? Recent crime statistics reveal a disturbing 27 per-cent increase in violent crime. Clive Anderson asks a panel of leading lawyers how changes to the law might help tackle the problem.

The programme looks at Law Commission proposals to sweep away archaic laws and introduce new categories of violent crime which would be simpler to understand and create more effective charging and sentencing options. It's also suggested that magistrates be allowed powers to jail violent offenders for longer periods.

Clive and his guests discuss particular concerns about domestic violence, exploring arguments that recent changes in the law relating to psychological abuse and coercive behaviour are inadequate and ineffective.

Outlining the Law Commission's proposals, Professor David Ormerod explains that they are designed to sweep away outdated, incoherent and ineffective laws and achieve quicker, better and cheaper justice.

Barrister and academic Susan Edwards says it may be difficult to produce the necessary evidence to achieve convictions in domestic violence cases involving coercive behaviour. And she complains that the Law Commission has not attempted to improve the law relating to strangulation, a common element of domestic violence.

Magistrates Association chairman Malcolm Richards agrees that allegations of coercive behaviour may be difficult to prove in court and says he and his colleagues are waiting for guidance on how to deal with such cases.

Francis FitzGibbon QC, the new chair of the Criminal Bar Association, doubts the Law Commission proposals will make much difference and argues strongly that magistrates sentencing powers should not be increased.

Producer: Brian King

An Above The Title production for BBC Radio 4.

Clive Anderson and guests discuss proposals to reform our laws on violence.

2016091420160917 (R4)

During the 43 years since Britain joined the European Union, EU law has become almost inextricably woven into the fabric of our lives, influencing everything from employment and consumer law to data protection and the environment.

But on the day that Britain leaves the EU, will all that law cease to apply? How should we approach the process of unravelling ourselves from EU law? What laws and regulations do we keep and what do we discard? Is this an opportunity to free ourselves from expensive and restrictive "bureaucratic EU red tape" or is there a danger that important social safeguards could be lost?

Crucially, in the absence of EU law guaranteeing free movement of labour, what will happen to EU citizens working in the UK and UK citizens working and living around Europe?

Clive Anderson and a panel of leading experts in EU law, with a range of views about the problems and the solutions, discuss the legal implications of Brexit. They are constitutional lawyer Richard Gordon QC, former Justice Secretary Lord Falconer, pro-leave barrister Martin Howe QC and solicitor Niki Walker, who specialises in areas of law heavily influenced by the EU.

Producer: Brian King

An Above The Title production for BBC Radio 4.

Clive Anderson and guests explore the legal fall-out from leaving the EU.

2016091420160917 (R4)

During the 43 years since Britain joined the European Union, EU law has become almost inextricably woven into the fabric of our lives, influencing everything from employment and consumer law to data protection and the environment.

But on the day that Britain leaves the EU, will all that law cease to apply? How should we approach the process of unravelling ourselves from EU law? What laws and regulations do we keep and what do we discard? Is this an opportunity to free ourselves from expensive and restrictive "bureaucratic EU red tape" or is there a danger that important social safeguards could be lost?

Crucially, in the absence of EU law guaranteeing free movement of labour, what will happen to EU citizens working in the UK and UK citizens working and living around Europe?

Clive Anderson and a panel of leading experts in EU law, with a range of views about the problems and the solutions, discuss the legal implications of Brexit. They are constitutional lawyer Richard Gordon QC, former Justice Secretary Lord Falconer, pro-leave barrister Martin Howe QC and solicitor Niki Walker, who specialises in areas of law heavily influenced by the EU.

Producer: Brian King

An Above The Title production for BBC Radio 4.

Clive Anderson and guests explore the legal fall-out from leaving the EU.

2016092120160924 (R4)

Clive Anderson and guests discuss the legal rights of prison inmates.

Clive Anderson and a panel of guests including former Government minister and ex-prison inmate Jonathan Aitken, discuss the legal and human rights of prisoners.

A prison sentence is clearly designed to remove an offender's freedom, but what about other rights - to vote, to family life, to have access to legal aid to have grievances aired in the courts and even employment rights. Should more be done to protect these rights? What exactly are a prisoner's rights and what are the legal, political and practical impediments to granting them?

Also taking part in the discussion are former prison governor Prof Andrew Coyle, now Emeritus Professor of Prison Studies at the University of London, solicitor Simon Creighton and a prisons adviser to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.

There are currently more than 95,000 prison inmates in Britain, the highest prison population of any European country. In 1983 our Law Lords ruled that a convicted prisoner "retains all civil rights which are not taken away expressly or by necessary implication". But prisoners support groups continue to complain that inmates are unfairly denied a variety of human and civil rights, not least the right to vote, to a family life and to be free from inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Clive Anderson asks his expert guests if prisoners have a right to be rehabilitated, and if they could, in theory, take action against the Government if they are not helped back onto the straight and narrow. Are the particularly rights of women and even transgender prisoners sufficiently protected? Do human and civil rights, and indeed justice, end at the prison gates?

Producer: Brian King

An Above the Title production for BBC Radio 4.

07/04/201020100410

Clive Anderson brings together some of the country's top judges and lawyers to discuss the legal issues of the day.

The first programme explores the often controversial interface between English law and religious belief.

Disputes in which articles of faith clash with the law of the land have arisen over the carrying of sacred knives, employment law, adoption, gay rights and cremation.

One of the first acts of the new Supreme Court was to rule that one of Britain's most successful faith schools had racially discriminated against a 12-year-old boy who was refused admission because the school did not recognise him as Jewish.

And the Government's attempts to strengthen the country's equalities legislation provoked the Pope to call on bishops to fight measures which could force churches to hire homosexual and transgender employees.

When individuals choose to have their disputes resolved in religious courts, such as Sharia or Beth Din, what kind of oversight should the secular courts of the United Kingdom exercise?

This programme explores the extent to which secular law accommodates the irrationality" of religious belief.

Should it be more accommodating as the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams has suggested?

The producer is Brian King.

This is an Above the Title production for BBC Radio 4.

Clive Anderson and some of the country's top legal minds discuss legal issues of the day."

07/04/201020100410

Clive Anderson brings together some of the country's top judges and lawyers to discuss the legal issues of the day.

The first programme explores the often controversial interface between English law and religious belief.

Disputes in which articles of faith clash with the law of the land have arisen over the carrying of sacred knives, employment law, adoption, gay rights and cremation.

One of the first acts of the new Supreme Court was to rule that one of Britain's most successful faith schools had racially discriminated against a 12-year-old boy who was refused admission because the school did not recognise him as Jewish.

And the Government's attempts to strengthen the country's equalities legislation provoked the Pope to call on bishops to fight measures which could force churches to hire homosexual and transgender employees.

When individuals choose to have their disputes resolved in religious courts, such as Sharia or Beth Din, what kind of oversight should the secular courts of the United Kingdom exercise?

This programme explores the extent to which secular law accommodates the irrationality" of religious belief.

Should it be more accommodating as the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams has suggested?

The producer is Brian King.

This is an Above the Title production for BBC Radio 4.

Clive Anderson and some of the country's top legal minds discuss legal issues of the day."

11/04/201220120414

Clive Anderson asks if UK planning laws are failing to prevent unnecessary development.

A Moral Obligation To Obey The Law20030603

Clive Anderson is joined by three eminent figures from the legal world to discuss whether we have a moral obligation to obey the law.

A Moral Obligation To Obey The Law20030603

Clive Anderson is joined by three eminent figures from the legal world to discuss whether we have a moral obligation to obey the law.

Above The Law

Above The Law20100414
Above The Law20100417
Banks And The Law2009012820090131

Clive Anderson presents the series analysing the legal issues of the day.

Is the public interest sufficiently protected by the current laws and regulations controlling the behaviour of banks and other financial institutions? Are new, tougher laws needed in the current economic climate?

Are the public sufficiently protected by the current laws controlling banks?

Banks And The Law2009012820090131

Clive Anderson presents the series analysing the legal issues of the day.

Is the public interest sufficiently protected by the current laws and regulations controlling the behaviour of banks and other financial institutions? Are new, tougher laws needed in the current economic climate?

Are the public sufficiently protected by the current laws controlling banks?

Class Actions20030520

With legal Aid slashed, individuals find it harder to take action against corporate giants.

Clive Anderson assesses the benefits of US class action.

Class Actions20030520

With legal Aid slashed, individuals find it harder to take action against corporate giants.

Clive Anderson assesses the benefits of US class action.

Complexity

Complexity2011041320110416

Clive Anderson and some of the country's top lawyers and judges discuss legal issues of the day.

The final programme in the current series discusses concerns that our law has become so complex that even judges are struggling to understand it.

The chair of the Law Commission, the appeal court judge Lord Justice Munby, tells Clive Anderson that unnecessary amounts of government legislation over recent years has compounded legal complexity, and made it difficult for the Commission to do its job, clarifying and simplifying the law.

The last Labour Government, for example, created 4,300 new crimes during its years in power - including a ban on swimming in the wreck of the Titanic and on the sale of game birds shot on a Sunday.

The programme hears how legal complexity creates problems in almost all areas of law, making it increasingly difficult for members of the public to understand and therefore exercise their rights.

Lord Justice Mumby says governments have failed to implement a lot of the Law Commissions suggested improvements to the law, and have also failed to introduce a "basic tool of democracy" - an authenticated electronic database of statutory law.

He admits that the Law Commission's ultimate objective, a complete codification of the law, is unlikely ever to be achieved.

Producer: Brian King

An Above The Title production for BBC Radio 4.

Clive Anderson and guests analyse the legal issues of the day.

Complexity2011041320110416

Clive Anderson and some of the country's top lawyers and judges discuss legal issues of the day.

The final programme in the current series discusses concerns that our law has become so complex that even judges are struggling to understand it.

The chair of the Law Commission, the appeal court judge Lord Justice Munby, tells Clive Anderson that unnecessary amounts of government legislation over recent years has compounded legal complexity, and made it difficult for the Commission to do its job, clarifying and simplifying the law.

The last Labour Government, for example, created 4,300 new crimes during its years in power - including a ban on swimming in the wreck of the Titanic and on the sale of game birds shot on a Sunday.

The programme hears how legal complexity creates problems in almost all areas of law, making it increasingly difficult for members of the public to understand and therefore exercise their rights.

Lord Justice Mumby says governments have failed to implement a lot of the Law Commissions suggested improvements to the law, and have also failed to introduce a "basic tool of democracy" - an authenticated electronic database of statutory law.

He admits that the Law Commission's ultimate objective, a complete codification of the law, is unlikely ever to be achieved.

Producer: Brian King

An Above The Title production for BBC Radio 4.

Clive Anderson and guests analyse the legal issues of the day.

Clive Anderson and some of the country's top lawyers and judges discuss legal issues of the day.

The final programme in the current series discusses concerns that our law has become so complex that even judges are struggling to understand it.

The chair of the Law Commission, the appeal court judge Lord Justice Munby, tells Clive Anderson that unnecessary amounts of government legislation over recent years has compounded legal complexity, and made it difficult for the Commission to do its job, clarifying and simplifying the law.

The last Labour Government, for example, created 4,300 new crimes during its years in power - including a ban on swimming in the wreck of the Titanic and on the sale of game birds shot on a Sunday.

The programme hears how legal complexity creates problems in almost all areas of law, making it increasingly difficult for members of the public to understand and therefore exercise their rights.

Lord Justice Mumby says governments have failed to implement a lot of the Law Commissions suggested improvements to the law, and have also failed to introduce a "basic tool of democracy" - an authenticated electronic database of statutory law.

He admits that the Law Commission's ultimate objective, a complete codification of the law, is unlikely ever to be achieved.

Producer: Brian King

An Above The Title production for BBC Radio 4.

Clive Anderson and guests analyse the legal issues of the day.

Corporate And Public Manslaughter20030422

For some time there has been pressure both within and outside the legal profession for there to be a statutory offence of Corporate and Public Manslaughter.

But there are considerable obstacles.

What are they, can they be overcome and in any event, would such an offence be more just than prosecuting the individuals responsible? Clive Anderson examines the arguments for and against.

Corporate And Public Manslaughter20030422

For some time there has been pressure both within and outside the legal profession for there to be a statutory offence of Corporate and Public Manslaughter.

But there are considerable obstacles.

What are they, can they be overcome and in any event, would such an offence be more just than prosecuting the individuals responsible? Clive Anderson examines the arguments for and against.

Courtroom Drama2012122620121229

With its sets and costumes, soliloquies, suspense and dramatic revelations - the courtroom is pure theatre.

Following the return of Rumpole to Radio 4, Clive Anderson and his guests discuss how accurately the legal world is depicted in stage and screen dramas. And they discuss the issues which arise when the distinctions between fiction and fact - between Rumpole and reality - become blurred in the public's mind.

Guests Helena Kennedy QC, appeal court judge Sir Alan Moses, German judge Ruth Herz and former barrister and co-creator of Garrow's Law, Mark Pallis, reflect on 50 years of fictional courtroom dramas - from To Kill a Mockingbird to Silk, and ask if lawyers can learn things from the actors who portray them.

Does the way courtroom dramas introduce dramatic last minute evidence, show defendants crumbling under cross-examination and defence barristers reducing juries to tears, even remotely reflect the real world? Are judges really as out of touch, and lawyers as pompous and greedy as their screen counterparts? And does it really matter if screenwriters fail to stick to the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

Award-winning producers of comedy, drama, factual and entertainment programming.

Producer: Brian King

An Above The Title production for BBC Radio 4.

Clive Anderson and guests look at how the legal world is reflected on stage and screen.

Courtroom Drama2012122620121229

With its sets and costumes, soliloquies, suspense and dramatic revelations - the courtroom is pure theatre.

Following the return of Rumpole to Radio 4, Clive Anderson and his guests discuss how accurately the legal world is depicted in stage and screen dramas. And they discuss the issues which arise when the distinctions between fiction and fact - between Rumpole and reality - become blurred in the public's mind.

Guests Helena Kennedy QC, appeal court judge Sir Alan Moses, German judge Ruth Herz and former barrister and co-creator of Garrow's Law, Mark Pallis, reflect on 50 years of fictional courtroom dramas - from To Kill a Mockingbird to Silk, and ask if lawyers can learn things from the actors who portray them.

Does the way courtroom dramas introduce dramatic last minute evidence, show defendants crumbling under cross-examination and defence barristers reducing juries to tears, even remotely reflect the real world? Are judges really as out of touch, and lawyers as pompous and greedy as their screen counterparts? And does it really matter if screenwriters fail to stick to the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

Award-winning producers of comedy, drama, factual and entertainment programming.

Producer: Brian King

An Above The Title production for BBC Radio 4.

Clive Anderson and guests look at how the legal world is reflected on stage and screen.

Cross-examination In The Dock2013091120130914

Clive Anderson and guests ask if new rules on cross-examination will lead to injustices.

In the first of a news series, Clive Anderson asks if overly aggressive cross-examination of witnesses in court turns trial by jury into trial by ordeal.

Senior circuit court judge Sally Cahill and barristers experienced in prosecuting and defending, discuss whether new rules dictating the way lawyers cross-examine defendants, victims and other witness in court could compromise the right to a full and rigorous defence and lead to injustices.

In a recent high profile child prostitution trial, one young girl was cross-examined for 12 days by seven different defence barristers and the parents of the murdered schoolgirl Milly Dowler were said to be mentally scarred by the trauma of the cross examination they had to go through in the trial of their daughter's killer.

Barrister Hugh Davies stresses the need for more protection for vulnerable witnesses while fellow advocate John Cooper strongly defends the right of a defence lawyer to vigorously cross-examine witnesses and challenge their evidence.

Barristers are currently being trained to work within new rules governing cross-examination which prevent them using complicated vocabulary and tricks of advocacy to bamboozle the immature or unconfident. Prosecutors and police chiefs have also published new guidelines on how to prepare cases involving child sexual abuse - focusing on the credibility of the allegations, not on the victim's strength or weaknesses as a witness.

How are these new rules and proposed changes playing out in the courtroom? Is justice being compromised/ And how exactly is it determined who is "vulnerable" in the first place?

Producer: Brian King

An Above the Title production for BBC Radio 4.

Cross-examination In The Dock2013091120130914

Clive Anderson and guests ask if new rules on cross-examination will lead to injustices.

In the first of a news series, Clive Anderson asks if overly aggressive cross-examination of witnesses in court turns trial by jury into trial by ordeal.

Senior circuit court judge Sally Cahill and barristers experienced in prosecuting and defending, discuss whether new rules dictating the way lawyers cross-examine defendants, victims and other witness in court could compromise the right to a full and rigorous defence and lead to injustices.

In a recent high profile child prostitution trial, one young girl was cross-examined for 12 days by seven different defence barristers and the parents of the murdered schoolgirl Milly Dowler were said to be mentally scarred by the trauma of the cross examination they had to go through in the trial of their daughter's killer.

Barrister Hugh Davies stresses the need for more protection for vulnerable witnesses while fellow advocate John Cooper strongly defends the right of a defence lawyer to vigorously cross-examine witnesses and challenge their evidence.

Barristers are currently being trained to work within new rules governing cross-examination which prevent them using complicated vocabulary and tricks of advocacy to bamboozle the immature or unconfident. Prosecutors and police chiefs have also published new guidelines on how to prepare cases involving child sexual abuse - focusing on the credibility of the allegations, not on the victim's strength or weaknesses as a witness.

How are these new rules and proposed changes playing out in the courtroom? Is justice being compromised/ And how exactly is it determined who is "vulnerable" in the first place?

Producer: Brian King

An Above the Title production for BBC Radio 4.

Do Judges Declare The Law Or Do They Make It?20050412

This Radio 4 flagship law programme continues with Clive Anderson and eminent guests discussing the constitutional role of judges in Britain's legal system.

Do they simply declare the law as it exists, or do they actually make the law for future generations? In either case, how much discretion do they have, what principles form the basis of their decisions, and is that role changing?

Do Judges Declare The Law Or Do They Make It?20050412

This Radio 4 flagship law programme continues with Clive Anderson and eminent guests discussing the constitutional role of judges in Britain's legal system.

Do they simply declare the law as it exists, or do they actually make the law for future generations? In either case, how much discretion do they have, what principles form the basis of their decisions, and is that role changing?

English And Islamic Law20030429

Clive Anderson and his guests examine the areas of conflict between domestic English law and Islamic law.

Can these two systems co-exist? What happens when they conflict? Should one take precedence over the other, or is this a matter of conscience and civil liberty?

English And Islamic Law20030429

Clive Anderson and his guests examine the areas of conflict between domestic English law and Islamic law.

Can these two systems co-exist? What happens when they conflict? Should one take precedence over the other, or is this a matter of conscience and civil liberty?

European Law: After Lisbon

European Law: After Lisbon2009121620091219

Clive Anderson presents the series analysing the legal issues of the day.

European law has been described as an incoming tide which cannot be held back.

Will the coming into force of the Lisbon Treaty generate a legal tsunami which will overwhelm British sovereignty? Are we governed by our own laws or the law of Europe?

Will the Lisbon Treaty generate a legal tsunami which will overwhelm British sovereignty?

European Law: After Lisbon2009121620091219

Clive Anderson presents the series analysing the legal issues of the day.

European law has been described as an incoming tide which cannot be held back.

Will the coming into force of the Lisbon Treaty generate a legal tsunami which will overwhelm British sovereignty? Are we governed by our own laws or the law of Europe?

Will the Lisbon Treaty generate a legal tsunami which will overwhelm British sovereignty?

European Law: After Lisbon20091219

Will the Lisbon Treaty generate a legal tsunami which will overwhelm British sovereignty?

Family Courts2009012120090124

Clive Anderson presents the series analysing the legal issues of the day.

The family courts stand accused by some of operating in a conspiracy of silence and failing to deliver justice.

Will the government's decision to open the courts to the media improve the situation or simply lead to the sensitive personal details in divorce and child custody cases being exposed in the tabloids?

Will opening the family courts to the media improve their transparency?

Family Courts2009012120090124

Clive Anderson presents the series analysing the legal issues of the day.

The family courts stand accused by some of operating in a conspiracy of silence and failing to deliver justice.

Will the government's decision to open the courts to the media improve the situation or simply lead to the sensitive personal details in divorce and child custody cases being exposed in the tabloids?

Will opening the family courts to the media improve their transparency?

Family Courts20090124
Family Law19990302

Clive Anderson cuts through the jargon to get to the heart of an issue which affects anyone who uses the legal system.

`Family Law'.

Family Law19990302

Clive Anderson cuts through the jargon to get to the heart of an issue which affects anyone who uses the legal system.

`Family Law'.

Good Samaritan Law2015011420150117 (R4)

Clive Anderson asks if we need new laws to make citizens become good samaritans.

Clive Anderson and guests ask why Britain, unlike many other countries in the world, has no general law which requires people to behave like good Samaritans, punishing those who fail to help others in trouble.

Under French law, a person who endangers the life or health of another by failing to assist in some way faces imprisonment of up to five years or a fine of 75,000 euros. In the UK there would be no liability whatsoever. We can walk past a drowning baby with legal impunity.

Our common law system in the UK does not generally impose liability for pure omissions - failures to act. There is no general duty of care owed by one person to prevent harm occurring to another. However, a duty of care can arise, for example, once someone attempts to rescue a drowning child if they inadvertently make things worse.

So is British law both failing to make people behave as good Samaritans and punishing them if they do? What needs to change?

The panel includes former law lord, Lord Hoffmann, and distinguished academic lawyer Andrew Ashworth who have polarised views on the issue. Andrew Ashworth calls for the introduction of a general good Samaritan law, arguing that our current law is untidy and unprincipled. Lord Hoffmann suggests such a law would be unnecessary and inappropriate.

With leading barrister Peter Cooke and French law expert Catherine Elliott, the panel examines the arguments for and against a law imposing a duty of rescue.

Producer: Brian King

An Above The Title production for BBC Radio 4.

Good Samaritan Law2015011420150117 (R4)

Clive Anderson asks if we need new laws to make citizens become good samaritans.

Clive Anderson and guests ask why Britain, unlike many other countries in the world, has no general law which requires people to behave like good Samaritans, punishing those who fail to help others in trouble.

Under French law, a person who endangers the life or health of another by failing to assist in some way faces imprisonment of up to five years or a fine of 75,000 euros. In the UK there would be no liability whatsoever. We can walk past a drowning baby with legal impunity.

Our common law system in the UK does not generally impose liability for pure omissions - failures to act. There is no general duty of care owed by one person to prevent harm occurring to another. However, a duty of care can arise, for example, once someone attempts to rescue a drowning child if they inadvertently make things worse.

So is British law both failing to make people behave as good Samaritans and punishing them if they do? What needs to change?

The panel includes former law lord, Lord Hoffmann, and distinguished academic lawyer Andrew Ashworth who have polarised views on the issue. Andrew Ashworth calls for the introduction of a general good Samaritan law, arguing that our current law is untidy and unprincipled. Lord Hoffmann suggests such a law would be unnecessary and inappropriate.

With leading barrister Peter Cooke and French law expert Catherine Elliott, the panel examines the arguments for and against a law imposing a duty of rescue.

Producer: Brian King

An Above The Title production for BBC Radio 4.

Housing Law20170913

Does the law strike the right balance between the rights of tenants and landlords?

A judge led inquiry has been set up to establish the facts of the devastating Grenfell Tower fire. The tragedy has shone a spotlight on issues of housing safety. Clive Anderson and guests discuss topical housing law issues. Does the law sufficiently protect the tenure, safety and other legal rights of tenants in both the private and public sectors?

There is consensus in the legal community that housing law is under-resourced, unnecessarily complex and, in many ways, outdated. But what rights should tenants have?

Barrister Liz Davies says a lack of legal aid is preventing tenants from bringing unsafe and unsatisfactory housing to court. Current legislation means a legal claim only arises where the rented property is in "disrepair". A tenant has legal recourse if their boiler is broken, but none if the heating is functioning but inadequate.

The programme discusses concerns that current protections are unevenly applied. Private landlords can be inspected and works required by environmental health officer. But these officers cannot compel their own local authorities to act.

In 2012, the Welsh Assembly announced it would bring into legislation Law Commission recommendations that will dramatically simplify the rental market. Solicitor David Smith, who was involved in drafting the legislation, says the hugely complicated process will take another couple of years. Should England follow suit?

Part-time judge Caroline Hunter is supportive of a greater role for specialist tribunals to increase efficiency and access to justice. Barrister Matt Hutchings QC argues for additional social housing saying that, without more homes, additional laws will only add further complexity.

Producer: Matt Willis
A 7digital production for BBC Radio 4.

Housing Law20170913

Does the law strike the right balance between the rights of tenants and landlords?

A judge led inquiry has been set up to establish the facts of the devastating Grenfell Tower fire. The tragedy has shone a spotlight on issues of housing safety. Clive Anderson and guests discuss topical housing law issues. Does the law sufficiently protect the tenure, safety and other legal rights of tenants in both the private and public sectors?

There is consensus in the legal community that housing law is under-resourced, unnecessarily complex and, in many ways, outdated. But what rights should tenants have?

Barrister Liz Davies says a lack of legal aid is preventing tenants from bringing unsafe and unsatisfactory housing to court. Current legislation means a legal claim only arises where the rented property is in "disrepair". A tenant has legal recourse if their boiler is broken, but none if the heating is functioning but inadequate.

The programme discusses concerns that current protections are unevenly applied. Private landlords can be inspected and works required by environmental health officer. But these officers cannot compel their own local authorities to act.

In 2012, the Welsh Assembly announced it would bring into legislation Law Commission recommendations that will dramatically simplify the rental market. Solicitor David Smith, who was involved in drafting the legislation, says the hugely complicated process will take another couple of years. Should England follow suit?

Part-time judge Caroline Hunter is supportive of a greater role for specialist tribunals to increase efficiency and access to justice. Barrister Matt Hutchings QC argues for additional social housing saying that, without more homes, additional laws will only add further complexity.

Producer: Matt Willis
A 7digital production for BBC Radio 4.

How Free Is Our Speech?2013052920130601

Are laws designed to protect individuals and minority groups from offence and harassment, inhibiting free speech?

Clive Anderson and his guests discuss whether cases such as the conviction of a woman for telling David Cameron he had "blood on his hands" and the arrest of a man for calling a police horse "gay" are bringing the law into disrepute.

Barristers Ivan Hare and Neil Addison call for the repeal of some public order laws and for reform of law relating to the incitement of hatred on the grounds or race, religion or sexual orientation.

But Chief Constable Andrew Trotter argues that such laws are essential tools in the police armoury for maintaining public order. He says minority groups and individuals deserve protection from abusive language.

Legal academic Gavin Phillipson suggests that hate speech laws should be restricted to preventing language which fundamentally questions other people's right to exist or that attempts to relegate them to lower class citizens.

Producer: Brian King

An Above The Title production for BBC Radio 4.

Are laws designed to protect individuals and minority groups from offence, inhibiting free speech?

Recent court decisions, including that of a woman found guilty of a public order offence for telling David Cameron he had "blood on his hands", have raised concerns that courts are more inclined to protect the sensitivities of groups and individuals than to preserve the right of free speech.

In the words of Lord Justice Sedley, "Freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having." So is our freedom to express our opinions - in public or through social media - under threat?

Clive Anderson and his guests discuss laws aimed at suppressing "hate speech" - incitement to racial or religious hatred - and also wide-ranging powers of the police and courts under Section 5 of the Public Order Act, to decide if words, posters or ideas are abusive. Is the law too restrictive, creating a chilling effect on free speech? Should such matters be subject to criminal law at all? How does our law compare with elsewhere in the world?

How Free Is Our Speech?2013052920130601

Are laws designed to protect individuals and minority groups from offence and harassment, inhibiting free speech?

Clive Anderson and his guests discuss whether cases such as the conviction of a woman for telling David Cameron he had "blood on his hands" and the arrest of a man for calling a police horse "gay" are bringing the law into disrepute.

Barristers Ivan Hare and Neil Addison call for the repeal of some public order laws and for reform of law relating to the incitement of hatred on the grounds or race, religion or sexual orientation.

But Chief Constable Andrew Trotter argues that such laws are essential tools in the police armoury for maintaining public order. He says minority groups and individuals deserve protection from abusive language.

Legal academic Gavin Phillipson suggests that hate speech laws should be restricted to preventing language which fundamentally questions other people's right to exist or that attempts to relegate them to lower class citizens.

Producer: Brian King

An Above The Title production for BBC Radio 4.

Are laws designed to protect individuals and minority groups from offence, inhibiting free speech?

Recent court decisions, including that of a woman found guilty of a public order offence for telling David Cameron he had "blood on his hands", have raised concerns that courts are more inclined to protect the sensitivities of groups and individuals than to preserve the right of free speech.

In the words of Lord Justice Sedley, "Freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having." So is our freedom to express our opinions - in public or through social media - under threat?

Clive Anderson and his guests discuss laws aimed at suppressing "hate speech" - incitement to racial or religious hatred - and also wide-ranging powers of the police and courts under Section 5 of the Public Order Act, to decide if words, posters or ideas are abusive. Is the law too restrictive, creating a chilling effect on free speech? Should such matters be subject to criminal law at all? How does our law compare with elsewhere in the world?

Producer: Brian King

An Above The Title production for BBC Radio 4.

Human Rights At The Crossroads?20150121

Clive Anderson and guests get behind the political rhetoric to debate the potential impact on the rights of British citizens if the Government carries out a proposal to scrap the Human Rights Act and replace it with a "more British" Bill of Rights.

Barrister Martin Howe QC, who was a member of the Coalition Government's recent commission on human rights, defends the proposals and argues that British citizens and Parliament should not be subject to decisions made by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

But the proposals are challenged by the other guests - barrister Tom de la Mare QC, legal academic Dr Alison Young and retired Appeal Court judge Sir Stanley Burnton. Sir Stanley totally rejects the suggestion that he and his fellow judges are being dictated to by a foreign court.

The panel also discusses the Government's threat to withdraw from the European Convention of Human Rights unless Parliament is allowed to veto judgments from the European Court. Would it be possible for one member country to have special status, or would such a move threaten British membership of the EU itself?

Producer: Brian King

An Above The Title production for BBC Radio 4.

Clive Anderson and guests get behind the political rhetoric to debate the potential impact of a withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights on the rights of British citizens.

David Cameron has said a future Conservative government would be prepared to withdraw from the Convention if Parliament failed to secure the right to veto judgments from the European Court of Human Rights. He wants rulings of the Court to be advisory rather than binding.

A draft consultative Bill of Rights and Responsibilities is expected to published soon, setting out more detail on the Government proposals, which are likely to include amendment of the "right to family life" contained in Article 8 of the ECHR. The Government wants to ensure "a foreign national who takes the life of another person will not be able to use a defence based on Article 8 to prevent the state deporting them after they have served their sentence". But might any tampering with human rights law potentially weaken its general effectiveness?

Andrea Coomber, Director of the civil rights group Justice, warns that the Bill of Rights would be "a patchwork of national rules which would mean no standard at all" with human rights subject to the "whims of national interest".

Former Conservative attorney general Dominic Grieve has described the Government proposals as "almost puerile". Would they weaken or improve human rights protection in Britain? Is there a better way to protect human rights in this country?

Produced by Brian King

Human Rights At The Crossroads?2015012120150124 (R4)

Clive Anderson asks what difference a new Bill of Rights would make to UK citizens.

Clive Anderson and guests get behind the political rhetoric to debate the potential impact on the rights of British citizens if the Government carries out a proposal to scrap the Human Rights Act and replace it with a "more British" Bill of Rights.

Barrister Martin Howe QC, who was a member of the Coalition Government's recent commission on human rights, defends the proposals and argues that British citizens and Parliament should not be subject to decisions made by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

But the proposals are challenged by the other guests - barrister Tom de la Mare QC, legal academic Dr Alison Young and retired Appeal Court judge Sir Stanley Burnton. Sir Stanley totally rejects the suggestion that he and his fellow judges are being dictated to by a foreign court.

The panel also discusses the Government's threat to withdraw from the European Convention of Human Rights unless Parliament is allowed to veto judgments from the European Court. Would it be possible for one member country to have special status, or would such a move threaten British membership of the EU itself?

Producer: Brian King

An Above The Title production for BBC Radio 4.

Clive Anderson and guests get behind the political rhetoric to debate the potential impact of a withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights on the rights of British citizens.

David Cameron has said a future Conservative government would be prepared to withdraw from the Convention if Parliament failed to secure the right to veto judgments from the European Court of Human Rights. He wants rulings of the Court to be advisory rather than binding.

A draft consultative Bill of Rights and Responsibilities is expected to published soon, setting out more detail on the Government proposals, which are likely to include amendment of the "right to family life" contained in Article 8 of the ECHR. The Government wants to ensure "a foreign national who takes the life of another person will not be able to use a defence based on Article 8 to prevent the state deporting them after they have served their sentence". But might any tampering with human rights law potentially weaken its general effectiveness?

Andrea Coomber, Director of the civil rights group Justice, warns that the Bill of Rights would be "a patchwork of national rules which would mean no standard at all" with human rights subject to the "whims of national interest".

Former Conservative attorney general Dominic Grieve has described the Government proposals as "almost puerile". Would they weaken or improve human rights protection in Britain? Is there a better way to protect human rights in this country?

Produced by Brian King

An Above The Title production for BBC Radio 4.

Human Rights On The Battlefield2015052020150523 (R4)

Clive Anderson and guests discuss the controversial suggestion that the UK should withdraw from human rights legislation and re-instate 'combat immunity' to protect the British Army from legal action.

The British Army may have stepped away from the battlefield, but it is still increasingly under major fire in the courts, where the Ministry of Defence has suffered a series of defeats. Since the landmark case of Smith v MOD in 2013, soldiers injured in battle or the families of those killed in action may sue the Government for negligence under domestic law and for breach of the "Right to Life" under the European Convention on Human Rights.

Arguing the case for combat immunity is Dr Jonathan Morgan, co-author of the think tank Policy Exchange's report Clearing the Fog of War which contends that the judiciary is the wrong body to hold the army to account. It says the extension of the common law of negligence to military action has already had damaging effects on the forces. The result will be an excessive degree of caution which is antithetical to the war-fighting ethos that is vital for success on the battlefield.

Arguing against Dr Morgan are barrister Jessica Simor QC, who acted for the appellants in Smith v Ministry of Defence, and retired Supreme Court judge Lord Hope, who presided in the case.

Also taking part is former Army Legal Service officer Andrew Buckham who now represents soldiers suing the military and the government.

Have court decisions which extend the reach of human rights law beyond the UK undermined the effectiveness of the military - and should it be parliament, not the judiciary, that holds the army to account?

Produced by Brian King

An Above The Title production for BBC Radio 4.

Clive Anderson and guests discuss the controversial suggestion that the UK should withdraw from human rights legislation and re-instate 'combat immunity' to protect the British Army from legal action, after a spate of courtroom defeats.

The British Army may have stepped away from the battlefield, but it is still increasingly under major fire in the courts. Since the landmark case of Smith v Ministry of Defence in 2013, soldiers injured in battle or the families of those killed in action may sue the Government for negligence under domestic law and for breach of the "Right to Life" under the European Convention on Human Rights.

Have these, and other court cases extending the reach of the law into Iraq and Afghanistan, undermined the effectiveness of the military?

The right-wing think tank Policy Exchange says the judiciary is the wrong body to hold the army to account - retrospectively examining purchasing, training and combat decisions. It says the "extension of the common law of negligence to military action has already had damaging effects on the forces. The result will be an excessive degree of caution which is antithetical to the war-fighting ethos that is vital for success on the battlefield."

Producer: Brian King

Human Rights On The Battlefield2015052020150523 (R4)

Clive Anderson and guests discuss the controversial suggestion that the UK should withdraw from human rights legislation and re-instate 'combat immunity' to protect the British Army from legal action.

The British Army may have stepped away from the battlefield, but it is still increasingly under major fire in the courts, where the Ministry of Defence has suffered a series of defeats. Since the landmark case of Smith v MOD in 2013, soldiers injured in battle or the families of those killed in action may sue the Government for negligence under domestic law and for breach of the "Right to Life" under the European Convention on Human Rights.

Arguing the case for combat immunity is Dr Jonathan Morgan, co-author of the think tank Policy Exchange's report Clearing the Fog of War which contends that the judiciary is the wrong body to hold the army to account. It says the extension of the common law of negligence to military action has already had damaging effects on the forces. The result will be an excessive degree of caution which is antithetical to the war-fighting ethos that is vital for success on the battlefield.

Arguing against Dr Morgan are barrister Jessica Simor QC, who acted for the appellants in Smith v Ministry of Defence, and retired Supreme Court judge Lord Hope, who presided in the case.

Also taking part is former Army Legal Service officer Andrew Buckham who now represents soldiers suing the military and the government.

Have court decisions which extend the reach of human rights law beyond the UK undermined the effectiveness of the military - and should it be parliament, not the judiciary, that holds the army to account?

Produced by Brian King

An Above The Title production for BBC Radio 4.

Clive Anderson and guests discuss the controversial suggestion that the UK should withdraw from human rights legislation and re-instate 'combat immunity' to protect the British Army from legal action, after a spate of courtroom defeats.

The British Army may have stepped away from the battlefield, but it is still increasingly under major fire in the courts. Since the landmark case of Smith v Ministry of Defence in 2013, soldiers injured in battle or the families of those killed in action may sue the Government for negligence under domestic law and for breach of the "Right to Life" under the European Convention on Human Rights.

Have these, and other court cases extending the reach of the law into Iraq and Afghanistan, undermined the effectiveness of the military?

The right-wing think tank Policy Exchange says the judiciary is the wrong body to hold the army to account - retrospectively examining purchasing, training and combat decisions. It says the "extension of the common law of negligence to military action has already had damaging effects on the forces. The result will be an excessive degree of caution which is antithetical to the war-fighting ethos that is vital for success on the battlefield."

Producer: Brian King

An Above the Title production for BBC Radio 4.

Instant Justice2013100220131005

Clive Anderson and guests ask if 'instant justice' is undermining our legal system.

The widespread use of on-the-spot fines, fixed penalties, cautions and other "out of court disposals" has raised concerns that the criminal justice system is being undermined.

To discuss the issues, Clive Anderson brings together the Director of Public Prosecutions Keir Starmer, the chief constable of Surrey Lynne Owens, Bar Council chair Maura McGowan QC, and the chair-elect of the Magistrates Association Richard Monkhouse.

Keir Starmer says claims that out of court disposals have become a growth industry are a myth but agrees there needs to be greater scrutiny of the way they are used. He challenges the assertion by shadow justice secretary Sadiq Khan that cautions were issued in 30 cases of rape last year and says such decisions would only be taken in very exceptional circumstances.

Richard Monkhouse worries that magistrates are being side-lined and says more cases should be brought before the courts. He is particularly concerned that cuts in legal aid have led to people accepting out of court disposals because they can't afford defence lawyers for low-level offences.

Maura McGowan fears the inconsistent use of out of court disposals around the country has diminished public confidence in the system and has left people uncertain about whether they will be prosecuted or just receive a caution.

And Lynne Owens admits that police officers sometimes get things wrong, but defends the use of cautions and other disposals for serious offences where victims are reluctant to take the matter to court.

All four guests agree there is an urgent need for a simpler and more transparent system.

Producer: Brian King

An Above the Title production for BBC Radio 4.

A sharp rise in the use of on the spot fines, penalty notices for disorder, cautioning, and other "out of court disposals" has raised concerns that the criminal justice system is being circumvented and undermined.

More than 50% of all offences are now dealt with outside of the courts. Clive Anderson brings together leading lawyers, a senior magistrate and a chief constable to discuss the developments.

Penalty notices for disorder and fixed penalty notices mean police and other officials can bypass time-consuming and costly court cases for less serious offences, but they are also able to "find people guilty" and mete out punishment without legal checks and balances. According to some critics, criminal offences such as harassment and disorderly conduct are being dealt with "like a parking ticket".

The number of on-the-spot fines issued by public authorities has increased 16-fold in the last decade, for offences such as leafleting and dog-fouling, and the number of fixed penalty notices issued by police, local authorities and schools has also increased dramatically. Meanwhile, Justice Secretary Chris Grayling has initiated a consultation about the frequent and inconsistent use of police cautions, often for very serious offences.

What does it mean for justice in Britain when criminal offences which were once tried in a court room are now dealt with on-the-spot, with the "offenders" unable to argue their case, or the public able to see justice done? And to what extent do these untested "crimes" lay on a police computer, accessible during CRB checks?

Producer: Brian King

An Above the Title production for BBC Radio 4.

Instant Justice2013100220131005

Clive Anderson and guests ask if 'instant justice' is undermining our legal system.

The widespread use of on-the-spot fines, fixed penalties, cautions and other "out of court disposals" has raised concerns that the criminal justice system is being undermined.

To discuss the issues, Clive Anderson brings together the Director of Public Prosecutions Keir Starmer, the chief constable of Surrey Lynne Owens, Bar Council chair Maura McGowan QC, and the chair-elect of the Magistrates Association Richard Monkhouse.

Keir Starmer says claims that out of court disposals have become a growth industry are a myth but agrees there needs to be greater scrutiny of the way they are used. He challenges the assertion by shadow justice secretary Sadiq Khan that cautions were issued in 30 cases of rape last year and says such decisions would only be taken in very exceptional circumstances.

Richard Monkhouse worries that magistrates are being side-lined and says more cases should be brought before the courts. He is particularly concerned that cuts in legal aid have led to people accepting out of court disposals because they can't afford defence lawyers for low-level offences.

Maura McGowan fears the inconsistent use of out of court disposals around the country has diminished public confidence in the system and has left people uncertain about whether they will be prosecuted or just receive a caution.

And Lynne Owens admits that police officers sometimes get things wrong, but defends the use of cautions and other disposals for serious offences where victims are reluctant to take the matter to court.

All four guests agree there is an urgent need for a simpler and more transparent system.

Producer: Brian King

An Above the Title production for BBC Radio 4.

A sharp rise in the use of on the spot fines, penalty notices for disorder, cautioning, and other "out of court disposals" has raised concerns that the criminal justice system is being circumvented and undermined.

More than 50% of all offences are now dealt with outside of the courts. Clive Anderson brings together leading lawyers, a senior magistrate and a chief constable to discuss the developments.

Penalty notices for disorder and fixed penalty notices mean police and other officials can bypass time-consuming and costly court cases for less serious offences, but they are also able to "find people guilty" and mete out punishment without legal checks and balances. According to some critics, criminal offences such as harassment and disorderly conduct are being dealt with "like a parking ticket".

The number of on-the-spot fines issued by public authorities has increased 16-fold in the last decade, for offences such as leafleting and dog-fouling, and the number of fixed penalty notices issued by police, local authorities and schools has also increased dramatically. Meanwhile, Justice Secretary Chris Grayling has initiated a consultation about the frequent and inconsistent use of police cautions, often for very serious offences.

What does it mean for justice in Britain when criminal offences which were once tried in a court room are now dealt with on-the-spot, with the "offenders" unable to argue their case, or the public able to see justice done? And to what extent do these untested "crimes" lay on a police computer, accessible during CRB checks?

Intellectual Property

Intellectual Property2011033020110402

Clive Anderson and some of the country's top lawyers and judges discuss legal issues of the day.

The second programme in the series looks at the law and intellectual property.

Humans are an extraordinarily creative species, but can't always agree about the legal rights relating to that creativity.

This programme looks at how our courts attempt to resolve disputes over trademarks, inventions, music and literature; in fact over everything from life-saving drugs to sweater designs.

Do our copyright, patent and other laws create the right balance between the protection of entrepreneurship and the potential benefit to the public of less regulated distribution of our creative output?

Producer: Brian King

An Above The Title production for BBC Radio 4.

Clive Anderson and guests discuss the law and intellectual property disputes.

Intellectual Property2011033020110402

Clive Anderson and some of the country's top lawyers and judges discuss legal issues of the day.

The second programme in the series looks at the law and intellectual property.

Humans are an extraordinarily creative species, but can't always agree about the legal rights relating to that creativity.

This programme looks at how our courts attempt to resolve disputes over trademarks, inventions, music and literature; in fact over everything from life-saving drugs to sweater designs.

Do our copyright, patent and other laws create the right balance between the protection of entrepreneurship and the potential benefit to the public of less regulated distribution of our creative output?

Producer: Brian King

An Above The Title production for BBC Radio 4.

Clive Anderson and guests discuss the law and intellectual property disputes.

Clive Anderson and some of the country's top lawyers and judges discuss legal issues of the day.

The second programme in the series looks at the law and intellectual property. Humans are an extraordinarily creative species, but can't always agree about the legal rights relating to that creativity.

This programme looks at how our courts attempt to resolve disputes over trademarks, inventions, music and literature; in fact over everything from life-saving drugs to sweater designs. Do our copyright, patent and other laws create the right balance between the protection of entrepreneurship and the potential benefit to the public of less regulated distribution of our creative output?

Producer: Brian King

An Above The Title production for BBC Radio 4.

Clive Anderson and guests discuss the law and intellectual property disputes.

Joint Enterprise2012040420120407

In the first of a new series, Clive Anderson and guests discuss the controversial law of joint enterprise under which people can be convicted of murder even if they didn't physically participate in an assault or strike the fatal blow.

Francis Fitzgibbon QC, who has defended people in joint enterprise cases, argues that this complex and unwieldy law is being applied indiscriminately to combat gang violence, and is leading to miscarriages of justice.

Solicitor Simon Natas calls for the law to be changed to make it necessary to prove that a defendant intended that someone should be killed or seriously injured.

But Mark Heywood QC who has prosecuted in the trials of people accused of murder following the death of a young man during a knife attack by a gang in Victoria Station, defends the way joint enterprise law is currently being applied.

Producer: Brian King

A Above The Title production for BBC Radio 4.

Clive Anderson and guests discuss the controversial law of joint enterprise.

Joint Enterprise2012040420120407

In the first of a new series, Clive Anderson and guests discuss the controversial law of joint enterprise under which people can be convicted of murder even if they didn't physically participate in an assault or strike the fatal blow.

Francis Fitzgibbon QC, who has defended people in joint enterprise cases, argues that this complex and unwieldy law is being applied indiscriminately to combat gang violence, and is leading to miscarriages of justice.

Solicitor Simon Natas calls for the law to be changed to make it necessary to prove that a defendant intended that someone should be killed or seriously injured.

But Mark Heywood QC who has prosecuted in the trials of people accused of murder following the death of a young man during a knife attack by a gang in Victoria Station, defends the way joint enterprise law is currently being applied.

Producer: Brian King

A Above The Title production for BBC Radio 4.

Clive Anderson and guests discuss the controversial law of joint enterprise.

Joint Enterprise20120407

Clive Anderson and guests discuss the controversial law of joint enterprise.

Jury Trial

Jury Trial2010042820100501

The British tradition of trial by jury is under threat.

Amendments to the Criminal Justice Act have allowed the first criminal trial to take place without a jury for over 400 years. And a senior judge is recommending the removal of juries from libel trials.

In the last in the current series of Unreliable Evidence, Clive Anderson and guests discuss the future of the jury.

Long-standing critic of the jury system, Sir Louis Blom-Cooper argues that the failure of juries to give reasons for their verdicts, makes them unaccountable. He argues that defendants should at least be given the option to be tried by a judge alone.

Crown Court Judge Simon Tonking, and criminal barrister Chris Sallon QC, both support the jury system, though Judge Tonking admits he doesn't always agree with the verdicts returned by juries. Prof Cheryl Thomas' report for the Ministry of Justice concluded that juries are fair, efficient and effective, but she concedes that there is room for improvement.

An Above the Title production for BBC Radio 4

Producers: Anne Tyerman Brian King.

Jury Trial20100501
Justice Delayed2013010220130105

New proposals to speed up our court system have raised widespread concerns that the changes will result in injustices.

Clive Anderson discusses the controversial plans with legal experts divided between those who believe "justice delayed is justice denied" and those who argue that "justice rushed is justice denied".

The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, has recently expressed "fury" over cases, such as the extradition of Abu Hamza, taking up to eight years to be resolved. He thinks the appeal system needs reform. Initiatives to introduce Saturday courts to deal with case backlogs are vehemently opposed by solicitors. Meanwhile prisoners languish in custody for long periods of time.

Clive's guests dispute accusations that lawyers prolong proceedings to line their own pockets, but disagree about how the process of achieving justice can safely be speeded up.

Producer: Brian King

An Above the Title production for BBC Radio 4.

Clive Anderson and top lawyers and judges reveal why the wheels of our legal system turn so slowly and discuss concerns that Government proposals to speed up proceedings in our criminal courts could lead to injustices.

The president of the Law Society, Lucy Scott-Moncrieff, strongly opposes plans for weekend courts and to extend court hours, warning that such measures would be expensive and ineffective.

Deputy chair of the Magistrates Association, Richard Monkhouse says delays in the criminal courts, which often result in defendants spending months in custody, could be addressed by giving magistrates greater sentencing powers.

Retired appeal court judge, Sir Mark Potter, predicts that legal aid cuts will result in major delays in the civil courts. He says a shortage of resources is causing particular problems in the family courts where delays have serious impacts on children's lives.

The programme also considers the arguments for reforming the appeal system, following comments from the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, who expressed "fury" over cases such as that of Abu Hamza which take many years to resolve.

New proposals to speed up our court system have raised widespread concerns that the changes will result in injustices.

Clive Anderson discusses the controversial plans with legal experts divided between those who believe "justice delayed is justice denied" and those who argue that "justice rushed is justice denied".

The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, has recently expressed "fury" over cases, such as the extradition of Abu Hamza, taking up to eight years to be resolved. He thinks the appeal system needs reform. Initiatives to introduce Saturday courts to deal with case backlogs are vehemently opposed by solicitors. Meanwhile prisoners languish in custody for long periods of time.

Clive's guests dispute accusations that lawyers prolong proceedings to line their own pockets, but disagree about how the process of achieving justice can safely be speeded up.

Producer: Brian King

An Above the Title production for BBC Radio 4.

Justice Denied In The Civil Courts?

Justice Denied In The Civil Courts?2009123020100102

Clive Anderson presents the series analysing the legal issues of the day.

Civil Court cases, from personal injury to unlawful detention, are increasingly being settled out of court. The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, has warned that the civil justice system is failing. But can the system afford to give everyone their day in court?

An Above The Title production for BBC Radio 4.

Civil Court cases, from personal injury to unlawful detention, are increasingly being settled out of court.

The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, has warned that the civil justice system is failing.

But can the system afford to give everyone their day in court?

Can the civil courts system afford to give everyone their day in court?

Justice Denied In The Civil Courts?2009123020100102

Clive Anderson presents the series analysing the legal issues of the day.

Civil Court cases, from personal injury to unlawful detention, are increasingly being settled out of court.

The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, has warned that the civil justice system is failing.

But can the system afford to give everyone their day in court?

An Above The Title production for BBC Radio 4.

Can the civil courts system afford to give everyone their day in court?

Clive Anderson presents the series analysing the legal issues of the day.

Civil Court cases, from personal injury to unlawful detention, are increasingly being settled out of court. The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, has warned that the civil justice system is failing. But can the system afford to give everyone their day in court?

An Above The Title production for BBC Radio 4.

Justice Denied In The Civil Courts?20100102

Can the civil courts system afford to give everyone their day in court?

Law Of The Sea20110112

Clive Anderson and some of the country's top legal minds discuss the law of the sea, examining the problems of trying to achieve justice over three-quarters of the earth's surface in the face of competing national interests.

Are the high seas a legal wild west, or can national and international law be brought together to address such complex issues as piracy, oil spills, fishing quotas and Arctic seabed mining rights?

And even if adequate law exists, who is responsible for seeing that it is enforced?

Guests include Britain's former judge at the International Tribunal of the Law of the Sea, David Anderson, and legal experts on piracy and environmental law.

Producer: Brian King

An Above The Title production for BBC Radio 4.

Clive Anderson and some of the country's top lawyers discuss the legal issues of the day.

Law V Liberty20010320

Clive Anderson looks at issues affecting the legal system.

He asks to what extent the law should stop us from doing what we want, as the courts are increasingly required to adjudicate on matters of conscience and personal liberty.

Should judges perform such a role, should Parliament decide, or should we be free to make our own choices in matters of conscience and belief?

Law V Liberty20010320

Clive Anderson looks at issues affecting the legal system.

He asks to what extent the law should stop us from doing what we want, as the courts are increasingly required to adjudicate on matters of conscience and personal liberty.

Should judges perform such a role, should Parliament decide, or should we be free to make our own choices in matters of conscience and belief?

Legal Aid20101229

Clive Anderson and some of the country's top lawyers and judges discuss legal issues of the day.

The second programme in the series explores the state of our legal aid system and examines how our access to justice could be affected by proposed Government cuts. Guests include Justice Minister, Jonathan Djanogly, who is responsible for the Government's legal aid policy, and the Bar Council chairman, Nicholas Green QC, who is a major critic of the cuts.

Widespread concern has been expressed about plans to cut nearly a third of the total legal aid budget. It will mean that civil legal aid would only be routinely available in cases where life or liberty is at stake, or where there is a risk of serious physical harm or loss of home. Funding for a wide range of disputes, including some divorce cases and clinical negligence, is to be axed.

The programme examines Justice Secretary, Kenneth Clarke's assertion that there is a "compelling case for going back to first principles in reforming legal aid". Will the cuts reduce access to justice, closing the law to all but those with money?

Producer: Brian King

An Above The Title production for BBC Radio 4.

Clive Anderson and guests discuss proposed Government cuts in the legal aid budget.

Legal Aid20110101

In this week's edition of Unreliable Evidence, Clive Anderson and a panel of top lawyers discuss concerns that proposed Government cuts to the legal aid budget will deny access to justice for the poor and weak in society.

The Ministry of Justice proposals target the civil and family law budget and will severely restrict legal aid available for divorce, welfare, employment, immigration, clinical negligence and personal injury cases.

Chair of the Bar Council, Nicholas Green QC warns that the cuts, which include a 10 per cent reduction in lawyers' fees, will create 'justice desserts' as barristers and solicitors increasingly opt out of legal aid work.

Producer: Brian King

An Above The Title production for BBC Radio 4.

Clive Anderson and guests discuss proposed Government cuts in the legal aid budget.

Libel

Libel20100421
Libel20100424
Lord Bingham20101222

In the first of a new series of Unreliable Evidence, a leading member of the former Labour Government reveals how his party's post 9/11 anti-terrorism policies were 'morally undermined' by one of the greatest judges since the Second World War.

Lord Bingham, who died earlier this year, had ruled that detention of foreign terror suspects without charge breached their human rights. And after retiring in 2008, the former senior Law Lord argued that Britain's invasion of Iraq in 2003 had contravened international law.

Former Labour Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer, joins Supreme Court Justices Lord Hope and Lady Hale, and legal academic Prof Philippe Sands QC to discuss Lord Bingham's impact on public life.

In a remarkably frank contribution, Lord Falconer pays tribute to Lord Bingham's brilliance but reveals how his judgments, particularly over the detention of terrorist suspects in Belmarsh, 'morally undermined' the Government and forced it to adopt less tough measures.

Lord Falconer also admits that he had been troubled by Lord Bingham's condemnation of the Government's decision to go to war against Iraq.

Producer: Brian King

An Above The Title production for BBC Radio 4.

Clive Anderson's guests pay tribute to the late Lord Bingham.

Murder Law2009010720090110

Proposed reforms to murder and manslaughter laws fall short of the demands of some lawyers

Clive Anderson presents the series analysing the legal issues of the day.

Proposed reforms to the law relating to murder and manslaughter will remove the defence of 'crime of passion' and make it easier to prosecute gang members who take part in a deadly assault, but do not actually strike the killer blow.

But the government's plans fall well short of the radical overhaul demanded by many lawyers.

Murder Law2009010720090110

Proposed reforms to murder and manslaughter laws fall short of the demands of some lawyers

Clive Anderson presents the series analysing the legal issues of the day.

Proposed reforms to the law relating to murder and manslaughter will remove the defence of 'crime of passion' and make it easier to prosecute gang members who take part in a deadly assault, but do not actually strike the killer blow.

But the government's plans fall well short of the radical overhaul demanded by many lawyers.

Proposed reforms to murder and manslaughter laws fall short of the demands of some lawyers

Murder Law20090110
Parliamentary Sovereignty20030506

Clive Anderson is joined by four distinguished guests from the legal world to discuss the subject of Parliamentary Sovereignty.

Parliamentary Sovereignty20030506

Clive Anderson is joined by four distinguished guests from the legal world to discuss the subject of Parliamentary Sovereignty.

Privacy2009011420090117

Clive Anderson presents the series analysing the legal issues of the day.

Max Mosley's successful court action against News of the World for invading his privacy has sent shockwaves through the newspaper world, which fears that this and earlier judgements will inhibit investigative journalism.

How can the courts balance the conflicting rights of privacy and freedom of speech?

How can the courts balance privacy and freedom of speech?

Privacy2009011420090117

Clive Anderson presents the series analysing the legal issues of the day.

Max Mosley's successful court action against News of the World for invading his privacy has sent shockwaves through the newspaper world, which fears that this and earlier judgements will inhibit investigative journalism.

How can the courts balance the conflicting rights of privacy and freedom of speech?

How can the courts balance privacy and freedom of speech?

How can the courts balance privacy and freedom of speech?

Privacy20090117

How can the courts balance privacy and freedom of speech?

Public Interest Immunity20030527

When the government is involved in court proceedings, and it wants to withhold evidence of a sensitive nature, the minister involved can issue a Public Interest Immunity Certificate.

But is Public Interest just another way to hide executive embarrassment? What happens to the competing public interests of open government, fair trial and freedom of information? And who judges the minister? Clive Anderson investigates.

/ Public Interest Immunity: Clive Anderson investigates what happens to public interests when ministers issue Public Interest Immunity Certificates.

Weather follows.

/ Public Interest Immunity When the government is involved in court proceedings, and it wants to withhold evidence of a sensitive nature, the minister involved can issue a Public Interest Immunity Certificate.

Public Interest Immunity20030527

When the government is involved in court proceedings, and it wants to withhold evidence of a sensitive nature, the minister involved can issue a Public Interest Immunity Certificate.

But is Public Interest just another way to hide executive embarrassment? What happens to the competing public interests of open government, fair trial and freedom of information? And who judges the minister? Clive Anderson investigates.

/ Public Interest Immunity: Clive Anderson investigates what happens to public interests when ministers issue Public Interest Immunity Certificates.

Weather follows.

/ Public Interest Immunity When the government is involved in court proceedings, and it wants to withhold evidence of a sensitive nature, the minister involved can issue a Public Interest Immunity Certificate.

Reporting The Law20111026

Clive Anderson and some of the country's top lawyers and judges discuss legal issues of the day.

The second programme in the series explores growing concerns that press coverage of the judicial process is out of control, resulting in trial by media and a threat to the defendant's right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

A central tenet of the British legal system is that justice should not just be done, it should be seen to be done, but does the media coverage of some high profile cases, such as that which followed the arrest of a suspect in the Joanna Yeats murder inquiry, overstep the mark?

The Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer, has warned that the Contempt of Court Act has had 'little or no effect' on reporting of cases. Prejudicial press reporting has led to the collapse of trials, and the Attorney General, Dominic Grieve, has indicated that he may introduce tougher laws to control press reporting.

Despite numerous arrests, there continues to be blanket media coverage of the News of the World phone hacking story. What effect will this have on any subsequent court proceedings?

Producer: Brian King

An Above The Title production for BBC Radio 4.

How press coverage of court cases can result in trial by media.

Reporting The Law20111029

Clive Anderson and some of the country's top lawyers and judges discuss legal issues of the day.

The second programme in the series explores growing concerns that press coverage of the judicial process is out of control, resulting in trial by media and a threat to the defendant's right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Guests include the Attorney General, Dominic Grieve, who is responsible for initiating contempt of court proceedings against the media and has successfully prosecuted several national newspapers this year.

Challenged to take action more frequently, he says he is reluctant to act in a way which would inhibit freedom of speech, but says that if newspapers flagrantly disregard the law he would be forced to consider introducing tougher laws.

The other guests are Old Bailey judge Peter Rook, leading barrister Desmond Browne QC and Gill Phillips, a senior lawyer in the legal department of the Guardian.

Producer: Brian King

An Above The Title production for BBC Radio 4.

How press coverage of court cases can result in trial by media.

Secret Courts2013060520130608

Leading human rights barrister Dinah Rose challenges cabinet minister Ken Clarke over the Government's extension of the use of secret courts.

Dinah Rose is fundamentally opposed to the new law which allows so-called closed material proceedings to be used in civil courts where the Government is defending itself against such things as claims for compensation by alleged victims of torture. She says the move is unfair and unnecessary and undermines the principle of open justice. She was among a number of high profile figures who recently resigned from the Lib Dems over the issue.

But Ken Clarke, who pushed new legislation through parliament, says the alternative would be to allow Al-Qaeda to learn all of Britain's security secrets.

Their lively exchange comes in an edition of Unreliable Evidence asking if the fundamental tenet of our legal system - that justice should be seen to be done - is coming increasingly under threat.

Clive Anderson and his guests discuss the arguments for and against conducting proceedings behind closed doors in the Court of Protection, the family courts and in the criminal courts as well as issues relating to anonymity of defendants, victims and witnesses.

Producer: Brian King

An Above The Title production for BBC Radio 4.

Secret Courts2013060520130608

Leading human rights barrister Dinah Rose challenges cabinet minister Ken Clarke over the Government's extension of the use of secret courts.

Dinah Rose is fundamentally opposed to the new law which allows so-called closed material proceedings to be used in civil courts where the Government is defending itself against such things as claims for compensation by alleged victims of torture. She says the move is unfair and unnecessary and undermines the principle of open justice. She was among a number of high profile figures who recently resigned from the Lib Dems over the issue.

But Ken Clarke, who pushed new legislation through parliament, says the alternative would be to allow Al-Qaeda to learn all of Britain's security secrets.

Their lively exchange comes in an edition of Unreliable Evidence asking if the fundamental tenet of our legal system - that justice should be seen to be done - is coming increasingly under threat.

Clive Anderson and his guests discuss the arguments for and against conducting proceedings behind closed doors in the Court of Protection, the family courts and in the criminal courts as well as issues relating to anonymity of defendants, victims and witnesses.

Producer: Brian King

An Above The Title production for BBC Radio 4.

Sentencing20010327

Clive Anderson airs topical issues in the legal system.

Here he focuses on how society should punish criminals, given the view recently expressed by the Director General and Chief Inspector of Prisons and the Lord Chief Justice that prisons have a negative effect on offenders.

Is the public's desire for retribution more important than rehabilitation, and should victims have a say in sentencing?

Sentencing20010327

Clive Anderson airs topical issues in the legal system.

Here he focuses on how society should punish criminals, given the view recently expressed by the Director General and Chief Inspector of Prisons and the Lord Chief Justice that prisons have a negative effect on offenders.

Is the public's desire for retribution more important than rehabilitation, and should victims have a say in sentencing?

Sentencing20030610

Clive Anderson is joined by four eminent figures from the legal world to discuss the issue of sentencing.

Sentencing20030610

Clive Anderson is joined by four eminent figures from the legal world to discuss the issue of sentencing.

Sentencing20171004

"Clive Anderson and guests discuss whether sentencing law is fit for purpose.

Following a record rise in the number of sentences being increased after being found to have been unduly lenient, Clive Anderson and guests discuss whether sentencing law is fit for purpose. Such is the complexity of sentencing law that it is creating costly delays and causing errors. A recent Law Commission study found that 30% of sentences given were unlawful..

Worldwide, crime is falling but our prison population is close to an all-time high, proportionately higher than almost every other comparable country. Is this despite or because of interventions in recent decades from politicians of all persuasions?

Should judges have more freedom to reflect a defendant's mitigating circumstances, even if that means wildly different sentences for the same crime? Or should rigid guidelines ensure consistency across the country? Should a shoplifter in Penrith be treated the same as in Peterborough?

The chairman of the Sentencing Council Lord Justice Treacy says longer sentences are the result of calls from politicians to be increasingly tough. But Laura Janes from the Howard League for Penal Reform, believes that this sentence inflation is a direct result of sentencing guidelines themselves. People convicted of GBH received 17 per cent longer sentences following the introduction of guidelines.

The Attorney General Jeremy Wright QC MP believes that the system is working. His scheme to correct unduly lenient sentences, increased only 190 of around 5500 cases heard in the Court of Appeal in 2016.

Barrister Michelle Nelson is alarmed by David Lammy's review of the criminal justice system. It found that BAME offenders face bias and even overt discrimination in the way they are handled.

Producer: Matt Willis
A 7digital production.

"

Sentencing20171004

"Clive Anderson and guests discuss whether sentencing law is fit for purpose.

Following a record rise in the number of sentences being increased after being found to have been unduly lenient, Clive Anderson and guests discuss whether sentencing law is fit for purpose. Such is the complexity of sentencing law that it is creating costly delays and causing errors. A recent Law Commission study found that 30% of sentences given were unlawful..

Worldwide, crime is falling but our prison population is close to an all-time high, proportionately higher than almost every other comparable country. Is this despite or because of interventions in recent decades from politicians of all persuasions?

Should judges have more freedom to reflect a defendant's mitigating circumstances, even if that means wildly different sentences for the same crime? Or should rigid guidelines ensure consistency across the country? Should a shoplifter in Penrith be treated the same as in Peterborough?

The chairman of the Sentencing Council Lord Justice Treacy says longer sentences are the result of calls from politicians to be increasingly tough. But Laura Janes from the Howard League for Penal Reform, believes that this sentence inflation is a direct result of sentencing guidelines themselves. People convicted of GBH received 17 per cent longer sentences following the introduction of guidelines.

The Attorney General Jeremy Wright QC MP believes that the system is working. His scheme to correct unduly lenient sentences, increased only 190 of around 5500 cases heard in the Court of Appeal in 2016.

Barrister Michelle Nelson is alarmed by David Lammy's review of the criminal justice system. It found that BAME offenders face bias and even overt discrimination in the way they are handled.

Producer: Matt Willis
A 7digital production.

Against a record rise in the number of sentences being made more severe after being found to have been unduly lenient, Clive Anderson and guests discuss whether sentencing law is fit for purpose.

Should judges have the freedom to reflect a defendant's mitigating circumstances, even if that means wildly different sentences for the same crime? Or should rigid guidelines ensure consistency across the country, so that a shoplifter in Penrith is treated the same as one in Peterborough?

The Law Commission has just published a report which says complexity in current sentencing law is causing costly delays and prompting judges to make errors, and even leading to unlawful sentences. In a recent study, 30% of sentences were found to have been handed down incorrectly.

The prison population has doubled in the last 25 years. It is now the largest in Europe. Lord Justice Treacy, Chairman of the Sentencing Council, believes an increased focus by courts on victims has seen so-called sentence inflation - increasingly harsh sentences handed down for the same crimes.

Barrister Michelle Nelson is alarmed by the findings of David Lammy's review of the criminal justice system that ethnic minority offenders face bias and even overt discrimination in the way they are handled. BAME people accused of drugs offences are 240% more likely to be sent to prison than white offenders.

The legal director of the Howard League, Laura Janes, asks if the aim is to rehabilitate offenders or simply to punish them. She says the UK should follow Germany and make more use of suspended sentences - opportunities for offenders to reform themselves - rather than automatically handing down custodial sentences.

Producer: Matt Willis
A 7digital production for BBC Radio 4.

"

Sentencing20171004

Clive Anderson and guests discuss whether sentencing law is fit for purpose.

Following a record rise in the number of sentences being increased after being found to have been unduly lenient, Clive Anderson and guests discuss whether sentencing law is fit for purpose. Such is the complexity of sentencing law that it is creating costly delays and causing errors. A recent Law Commission study found that 30% of sentences given were unlawful..

Worldwide, crime is falling but our prison population is close to an all-time high, proportionately higher than almost every other comparable country. Is this despite or because of interventions in recent decades from politicians of all persuasions?

Should judges have more freedom to reflect a defendant's mitigating circumstances, even if that means wildly different sentences for the same crime? Or should rigid guidelines ensure consistency across the country? Should a shoplifter in Penrith be treated the same as in Peterborough?

The chairman of the Sentencing Council Lord Justice Treacy says longer sentences are the result of calls from politicians to be increasingly tough. But Laura Janes from the Howard League for Penal Reform, believes that this sentence inflation is a direct result of sentencing guidelines themselves. People convicted of GBH received 17 per cent longer sentences following the introduction of guidelines.

The Attorney General Jeremy Wright QC MP believes that the system is working. His scheme to correct unduly lenient sentences, increased only 190 of around 5500 cases heard in the Court of Appeal in 2016.

Barrister Michelle Nelson is alarmed by David Lammy's review of the criminal justice system. It found that BAME offenders face bias and even overt discrimination in the way they are handled.

Producer: Matt Willis
A 7digital production.

Clive Anderson and guests discuss whether sentencing law is fit for purpose.

Following a record rise in the number of sentences being increased after being found to have been unduly lenient, Clive Anderson and guests discuss whether sentencing law is fit for purpose. Such is the complexity of sentencing law that it is creating costly delays and causing errors. A recent Law Commission study found that 30% of sentences given were unlawful..

Worldwide, crime is falling but our prison population is close to an all-time high, proportionately higher than almost every other comparable country. Is this despite or because of interventions in recent decades from politicians of all persuasions?

Should judges have more freedom to reflect a defendant's mitigating circumstances, even if that means wildly different sentences for the same crime? Or should rigid guidelines ensure consistency across the country? Should a shoplifter in Penrith be treated the same as in Peterborough?

The chairman of the Sentencing Council Lord Justice Treacy says longer sentences are the result of calls from politicians to be increasingly tough. But Laura Janes from the Howard League for Penal Reform, believes that this sentence inflation is a direct result of sentencing guidelines themselves. People convicted of GBH received 17 per cent longer sentences following the introduction of guidelines.

The Attorney General Jeremy Wright QC MP believes that the system is working. His scheme to correct unduly lenient sentences, increased only 190 of around 5500 cases heard in the Court of Appeal in 2016.

Barrister Michelle Nelson is alarmed by David Lammy's review of the criminal justice system. It found that BAME offenders face bias and even overt discrimination in the way they are handled.

Producer: Matt Willis
A 7digital production.

Against a record rise in the number of sentences being made more severe after being found to have been unduly lenient, Clive Anderson and guests discuss whether sentencing law is fit for purpose.

Should judges have the freedom to reflect a defendant's mitigating circumstances, even if that means wildly different sentences for the same crime? Or should rigid guidelines ensure consistency across the country, so that a shoplifter in Penrith is treated the same as one in Peterborough?

The Law Commission has just published a report which says complexity in current sentencing law is causing costly delays and prompting judges to make errors, and even leading to unlawful sentences. In a recent study, 30% of sentences were found to have been handed down incorrectly.

The prison population has doubled in the last 25 years. It is now the largest in Europe. Lord Justice Treacy, Chairman of the Sentencing Council, believes an increased focus by courts on victims has seen so-called sentence inflation - increasingly harsh sentences handed down for the same crimes.

Barrister Michelle Nelson is alarmed by the findings of David Lammy's review of the criminal justice system that ethnic minority offenders face bias and even overt discrimination in the way they are handled. BAME people accused of drugs offences are 240% more likely to be sent to prison than white offenders.

The legal director of the Howard League, Laura Janes, asks if the aim is to rehabilitate offenders or simply to punish them. She says the UK should follow Germany and make more use of suspended sentences - opportunities for offenders to reform themselves - rather than automatically handing down custodial sentences.

Producer: Matt Willis
A 7digital production for BBC Radio 4.

Sentencing20171004

Clive Anderson and guests discuss whether sentencing law is fit for purpose.

Following a record rise in the number of sentences being increased after being found to have been unduly lenient, Clive Anderson and guests discuss whether sentencing law is fit for purpose. Such is the complexity of sentencing law that it is creating costly delays and causing errors. A recent Law Commission study found that 30% of sentences given were unlawful..

Worldwide, crime is falling but our prison population is close to an all-time high, proportionately higher than almost every other comparable country. Is this despite or because of interventions in recent decades from politicians of all persuasions?

Should judges have more freedom to reflect a defendant's mitigating circumstances, even if that means wildly different sentences for the same crime? Or should rigid guidelines ensure consistency across the country? Should a shoplifter in Penrith be treated the same as in Peterborough?

The chairman of the Sentencing Council Lord Justice Treacy says longer sentences are the result of calls from politicians to be increasingly tough. But Laura Janes from the Howard League for Penal Reform, believes that this sentence inflation is a direct result of sentencing guidelines themselves. People convicted of GBH received 17 per cent longer sentences following the introduction of guidelines.

The Attorney General Jeremy Wright QC MP believes that the system is working. His scheme to correct unduly lenient sentences, increased only 190 of around 5500 cases heard in the Court of Appeal in 2016.

Barrister Michelle Nelson is alarmed by David Lammy's review of the criminal justice system. It found that BAME offenders face bias and even overt discrimination in the way they are handled.

Producer: Matt Willis
A 7digital production.

Sentencing20171004

Clive Anderson and guests discuss whether sentencing law is fit for purpose.

Following a record rise in the number of sentences being increased after being found to have been unduly lenient, Clive Anderson and guests discuss whether sentencing law is fit for purpose. Such is the complexity of sentencing law that it is creating costly delays and causing errors. A recent Law Commission study found that 30% of sentences given were unlawful..

Worldwide, crime is falling but our prison population is close to an all-time high, proportionately higher than almost every other comparable country. Is this despite or because of interventions in recent decades from politicians of all persuasions?

Should judges have more freedom to reflect a defendant's mitigating circumstances, even if that means wildly different sentences for the same crime? Or should rigid guidelines ensure consistency across the country? Should a shoplifter in Penrith be treated the same as in Peterborough?

The chairman of the Sentencing Council Lord Justice Treacy says longer sentences are the result of calls from politicians to be increasingly tough. But Laura Janes from the Howard League for Penal Reform, believes that this sentence inflation is a direct result of sentencing guidelines themselves. People convicted of GBH received 17 per cent longer sentences following the introduction of guidelines.

The Attorney General Jeremy Wright QC MP believes that the system is working. His scheme to correct unduly lenient sentences, increased only 190 of around 5500 cases heard in the Court of Appeal in 2016.

Barrister Michelle Nelson is alarmed by David Lammy's review of the criminal justice system. It found that BAME offenders face bias and even overt discrimination in the way they are handled.

Producer: Matt Willis
A 7digital production.

Sentencing20171004

Clive Anderson and guests discuss whether sentencing law is fit for purpose.

Following a record rise in the number of sentences being increased after being found to have been unduly lenient, Clive Anderson and guests discuss whether sentencing law is fit for purpose. Such is the complexity of sentencing law that it is creating costly delays and causing errors. A recent Law Commission study found that 30% of sentences given were unlawful..

Worldwide, crime is falling but our prison population is close to an all-time high, proportionately higher than almost every other comparable country. Is this despite or because of interventions in recent decades from politicians of all persuasions?

Should judges have more freedom to reflect a defendant's mitigating circumstances, even if that means wildly different sentences for the same crime? Or should rigid guidelines ensure consistency across the country? Should a shoplifter in Penrith be treated the same as in Peterborough?

The chairman of the Sentencing Council Lord Justice Treacy says longer sentences are the result of calls from politicians to be increasingly tough. But Laura Janes from the Howard League for Penal Reform, believes that this sentence inflation is a direct result of sentencing guidelines themselves. People convicted of GBH received 17 per cent longer sentences following the introduction of guidelines.

The Attorney General Jeremy Wright QC MP believes that the system is working. His scheme to correct unduly lenient sentences, increased only 190 of around 5500 cases heard in the Court of Appeal in 2016.

Barrister Michelle Nelson is alarmed by David Lammy's review of the criminal justice system. It found that BAME offenders face bias and even overt discrimination in the way they are handled.

Producer: Matt Willis
A 7digital production.

Against a record rise in the number of sentences being made more severe after being found to have been unduly lenient, Clive Anderson and guests discuss whether sentencing law is fit for purpose.

Should judges have the freedom to reflect a defendant's mitigating circumstances, even if that means wildly different sentences for the same crime? Or should rigid guidelines ensure consistency across the country, so that a shoplifter in Penrith is treated the same as one in Peterborough?

The Law Commission has just published a report which says complexity in current sentencing law is causing costly delays and prompting judges to make errors, and even leading to unlawful sentences. In a recent study, 30% of sentences were found to have been handed down incorrectly.

The prison population has doubled in the last 25 years. It is now the largest in Europe. Lord Justice Treacy, Chairman of the Sentencing Council, believes an increased focus by courts on victims has seen so-called sentence inflation - increasingly harsh sentences handed down for the same crimes.

Barrister Michelle Nelson is alarmed by the findings of David Lammy's review of the criminal justice system that ethnic minority offenders face bias and even overt discrimination in the way they are handled. BAME people accused of drugs offences are 240% more likely to be sent to prison than white offenders.

The legal director of the Howard League, Laura Janes, asks if the aim is to rehabilitate offenders or simply to punish them. She says the UK should follow Germany and make more use of suspended sentences - opportunities for offenders to reform themselves - rather than automatically handing down custodial sentences.

Producer: Matt Willis
A 7digital production for BBC Radio 4.

Sentencing20171004

Clive Anderson and guests discuss whether sentencing law is fit for purpose.

Following a record rise in the number of sentences being increased after being found to have been unduly lenient, Clive Anderson and guests discuss whether sentencing law is fit for purpose. Such is the complexity of sentencing law that it is creating costly delays and causing errors. A recent Law Commission study found that 30% of sentences given were unlawful..

Worldwide, crime is falling but our prison population is close to an all-time high, proportionately higher than almost every other comparable country. Is this despite or because of interventions in recent decades from politicians of all persuasions?

Should judges have more freedom to reflect a defendant's mitigating circumstances, even if that means wildly different sentences for the same crime? Or should rigid guidelines ensure consistency across the country? Should a shoplifter in Penrith be treated the same as in Peterborough?

The chairman of the Sentencing Council Lord Justice Treacy says longer sentences are the result of calls from politicians to be increasingly tough. But Laura Janes from the Howard League for Penal Reform, believes that this sentence inflation is a direct result of sentencing guidelines themselves. People convicted of GBH received 17 per cent longer sentences following the introduction of guidelines.

The Attorney General Jeremy Wright QC MP believes that the system is working. His scheme to correct unduly lenient sentences, increased only 190 of around 5500 cases heard in the Court of Appeal in 2016.

Barrister Michelle Nelson is alarmed by David Lammy's review of the criminal justice system. It found that BAME offenders face bias and even overt discrimination in the way they are handled.

Producer: Matt Willis
A 7digital production.

Clive Anderson and guests discuss whether sentencing law is fit for purpose.

Against a record rise in the number of sentences being made more severe after being found to have been unduly lenient, Clive Anderson and guests discuss whether sentencing law is fit for purpose.

Should judges have the freedom to reflect a defendant's mitigating circumstances, even if that means wildly different sentences for the same crime? Or should rigid guidelines ensure consistency across the country, so that a shoplifter in Penrith is treated the same as one in Peterborough?

The Law Commission has just published a report which says complexity in current sentencing law is causing costly delays and prompting judges to make errors, and even leading to unlawful sentences. In a recent study, 30% of sentences were found to have been handed down incorrectly.

The prison population has doubled in the last 25 years. It is now the largest in Europe. Lord Justice Treacy, Chairman of the Sentencing Council, believes an increased focus by courts on victims has seen so-called sentence inflation - increasingly harsh sentences handed down for the same crimes.

Barrister Michelle Nelson is alarmed by the findings of David Lammy's review of the criminal justice system that ethnic minority offenders face bias and even overt discrimination in the way they are handled. BAME people accused of drugs offences are 240% more likely to be sent to prison than white offenders.

The legal director of the Howard League, Laura Janes, asks if the aim is to rehabilitate offenders or simply to punish them. She says the UK should follow Germany and make more use of suspended sentences - opportunities for offenders to reform themselves - rather than automatically handing down custodial sentences.

Producer: Matt Willis
A 7digital production for BBC Radio 4.

Spying And Surveillance2013061220130615

Clive Anderson and guests discuss how the law controls surveillance by 'Big Brother'.

Clive Anderson and guests explore the extent to which the law protects our right to privacy in the face of increasing use of covert surveillance by MI5, police, local authorities and other public bodies and commercial organisations.

Clive's guests, all with wide knowledge of the world of spying and surveillance, warn that the threat to our privacy comes not just from Big Brother, but also from Little Brother and Big Brother PLC. And they argue that the law controlling surveillance is largely inadequate and widely misinterpreted.

Barrister Eric Metcalfe says a very wide range of bodies have the power to spy on us - from intercepting telephone calls, emails or letters, to carrying out covert surveillance in private premises and public places or accessing electronic data and private passwords. Some of these powers are utilised by local authorities to combat such crimes as allowing pets to foul footpaths, fly-tipping and breaches of the smoking ban.

Eric Metcalfe says only a tiny percentage of the millions of applications made for surveillance warrants in the past ten years have been subject to any kind of judicial oversight.

The programme also considers the possible revival of Government's proposals for what has been condemned as a "snoopers' charter" - legislation which would make it possible to track everyone's email, internet and mobile text use.

Produced by Brian King

An Above The Title production for BBC Radio 4.

The British public is under an increasing amount of surveillance - not just by CCTV, but also by undercover police, Government departments, the Office of Fair Trading, and even by the BBC.

Within the constraints of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) 2000, public bodies can gain permission to use covert techniques to obtain a wide range of information about people. This can involve the interception of telephone calls, emails or letters, covert surveillance in private premises and public places, access to electronic data, private passwords and the use of "covert human intelligence sources", including informants and undercover officers.

And proposals are still being considered for what has been condemned as a "snoopers' charter" - legislation which would make it possible to track everyone's email, internet and mobile text use.

Various local authorities have used RIPA-sanctioned investigations to combat such low-level offences as allowing pets to foul footpaths or breaches of the smoking ban.

This programme explores concerns that many of these undercover operations cross the line between acceptable and unacceptable behaviour and can amount to entrapment. What exactly does the law allow and does it fairly balance public interest with individual human rights?

And how effective is the Investigative Powers Tribunal, set up to consider complaints about the use of "intrusive powers" by intelligence services, law enforcement agencies and public authorities.

Spying And Surveillance2013061220130615

Clive Anderson and guests explore the extent to which the law protects our right to privacy in the face of increasing use of covert surveillance by MI5, police, local authorities and other public bodies and commercial organisations.

Clive's guests, all with wide knowledge of the world of spying and surveillance, warn that the threat to our privacy comes not just from Big Brother, but also from Little Brother and Big Brother PLC. And they argue that the law controlling surveillance is largely inadequate and widely misinterpreted.

Barrister Eric Metcalfe says a very wide range of bodies have the power to spy on us - from intercepting telephone calls, emails or letters, to carrying out covert surveillance in private premises and public places or accessing electronic data and private passwords. Some of these powers are utilised by local authorities to combat such crimes as allowing pets to foul footpaths, fly-tipping and breaches of the smoking ban.

Eric Metcalfe says only a tiny percentage of the millions of applications made for surveillance warrants in the past ten years have been subject to any kind of judicial oversight.

The programme also considers the possible revival of Government's proposals for what has been condemned as a "snoopers' charter" - legislation which would make it possible to track everyone's email, internet and mobile text use.

Produced by Brian King

An Above The Title production for BBC Radio 4.

Clive Anderson and guests discuss how the law controls surveillance by 'Big Brother'.

The British public is under an increasing amount of surveillance - not just by CCTV, but also by undercover police, Government departments, the Office of Fair Trading, and even by the BBC.

Within the constraints of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) 2000, public bodies can gain permission to use covert techniques to obtain a wide range of information about people. This can involve the interception of telephone calls, emails or letters, covert surveillance in private premises and public places, access to electronic data, private passwords and the use of "covert human intelligence sources", including informants and undercover officers.

And proposals are still being considered for what has been condemned as a "snoopers' charter" - legislation which would make it possible to track everyone's email, internet and mobile text use.

Various local authorities have used RIPA-sanctioned investigations to combat such low-level offences as allowing pets to foul footpaths or breaches of the smoking ban.

This programme explores concerns that many of these undercover operations cross the line between acceptable and unacceptable behaviour and can amount to entrapment. What exactly does the law allow and does it fairly balance public interest with individual human rights?

And how effective is the Investigative Powers Tribunal, set up to consider complaints about the use of "intrusive powers" by intelligence services, law enforcement agencies and public authorities.

Produced by: Brian King

An Above The Title production for BBC Radio 4.

Taking The Government To Court2013092520130928

Is our legal right to challenge the power of government under threat? With Clive Anderson.

Is our legal right to challenge the power of government under threat? Clive Anderson and guests discuss concerns that Government proposals to limit the use of judicial review could result in unlawful decisions by government and other public bodies going unchecked.

The number of applications for judicial review have increased rapidly in recent years, at great financial cost, but very few are ultimately successful. Is judicial review a "lawyers' charter" or an essential check on the way government and other public bodies exercise power?

A quadrupling of legal fees and tighter restrictions on time limits for lodging applications will choke off the "soaring number of judicial review" cases brought before the courts, according to Justice Secretary, Chris Grayling. He says these measures will prevent claims being used as a "cheap delaying tactic" in planning and immigration appeals. But lawyers have warned that the changes will restrict legal challenges to local authority decisions, creating the risk that vulnerable teenagers will be deprived of care and safe accommodation.

And Labour's justice spokesman, Sadiq Khan, says, "Recent history has shown the importance of judicial reviews in exposing shoddy and unlawful government decision-making - from the disastrous west coast mainline franchising to the botched cancelling of Building Schools for the Future".

Senior lawyers, judges and politicians discuss the strengths and weakness of judicial review, look at landmark cases, and argue about whether such legal challenges undermine good government.

Producer: Brian King

An Above the Title production for BBC Radio 4.

Taking The Government To Court2013092520130928

Is our legal right to challenge the power of government under threat? With Clive Anderson.

Is our legal right to challenge the power of government under threat? Clive Anderson and guests discuss concerns that Government proposals to limit the use of judicial review could result in unlawful decisions by government and other public bodies going unchecked.

The number of applications for judicial review have increased rapidly in recent years, at great financial cost, but very few are ultimately successful. Is judicial review a "lawyers' charter" or an essential check on the way government and other public bodies exercise power?

A quadrupling of legal fees and tighter restrictions on time limits for lodging applications will choke off the "soaring number of judicial review" cases brought before the courts, according to Justice Secretary, Chris Grayling. He says these measures will prevent claims being used as a "cheap delaying tactic" in planning and immigration appeals. But lawyers have warned that the changes will restrict legal challenges to local authority decisions, creating the risk that vulnerable teenagers will be deprived of care and safe accommodation.

And Labour's justice spokesman, Sadiq Khan, says, "Recent history has shown the importance of judicial reviews in exposing shoddy and unlawful government decision-making - from the disastrous west coast mainline franchising to the botched cancelling of Building Schools for the Future".

Senior lawyers, judges and politicians discuss the strengths and weakness of judicial review, look at landmark cases, and argue about whether such legal challenges undermine good government.

Producer: Brian King

An Above the Title production for BBC Radio 4.

Tax

Tax2011040620110409

Clive Anderson and guests analyse the legal issues of the day.

Tax2011040620110409

Clive Anderson and guests analyse the legal issues of the day.

Clive Anderson and guests analyse the legal issues of the day.

Tax20110409

Clive Anderson and guests analyse the legal issues of the day.

Television Cameras In Court

Television Cameras In Court2012041820120421

Clive Anderson and top judges and lawyers discuss controversial Government plans to relax the rules banning television cameras from our courts. While some legal experts are calling for justice to be seen to be done, others warn that the presence of cameras could 'pollute and corrupt' the process of justice.

Justice Minister Ken Clarke has announced his intention to initially allow judgments in the Court of Appeal to be broadcast, expanding this to the Crown Courts at a later stage. Despite pressure from broadcasters including the BBC, ITN and Sky, the Government has no immediate plans to allow filming of jurors, victims and witnesses.

Clive's guests include judges and lawyers with a wide range of views on the impact cameras would have on the trial process. Among them a Scottish Sheriff who has already allowed filming in his own court.

They discuss the arguments for and against allowing broadcasters unrestricted access to the courts 'from gavel to gavel'. What lessons can be learned from experience in other countries, such as in the OJ Simpson and Michael Jackson trials and the more recent Amanda Knox trial?

Would the presence of cameras dissuade people coming forward as witness, lower the esteem of the court or impede justice in any other way? Or is it time for justice to truly be seen to be done?

Producer: Brian King

An Above The Title production for BBC Radio 4.

Clive Anderson and guests discuss plans to allow television cameras into UK courts.

Television Cameras In Court2012041820120421

Clive Anderson and top judges and lawyers discuss controversial Government plans to relax the rules banning television cameras from our courts. While some legal experts are calling for justice to be seen to be done, others warn that the presence of cameras could 'pollute and corrupt' the process of justice.

Justice Minister Ken Clarke has announced his intention to initially allow judgments in the Court of Appeal to be broadcast, expanding this to the Crown Courts at a later stage. Despite pressure from broadcasters including the BBC, ITN and Sky, the Government has no immediate plans to allow filming of jurors, victims and witnesses.

Clive's guests include judges and lawyers with a wide range of views on the impact cameras would have on the trial process. Among them a Scottish Sheriff who has already allowed filming in his own court.

They discuss the arguments for and against allowing broadcasters unrestricted access to the courts 'from gavel to gavel'. What lessons can be learned from experience in other countries, such as in the OJ Simpson and Michael Jackson trials and the more recent Amanda Knox trial?

Would the presence of cameras dissuade people coming forward as witness, lower the esteem of the court or impede justice in any other way? Or is it time for justice to truly be seen to be done?

Producer: Brian King

An Above The Title production for BBC Radio 4.

Clive Anderson and guests discuss plans to allow television cameras into UK courts.

Clive Anderson and top judges and lawyers discuss controversial Government plans to relax the rules banning television cameras from our courts. While some legal experts are calling for justice to be seen to be done, others warn that the presence of cameras could 'pollute and corrupt' the process of justice.

Justice Minister Ken Clarke has announced his intention to initially allow judgments in the Court of Appeal to be broadcast, expanding this to the Crown Courts at a later stage. Despite pressure from broadcasters including the BBC, ITN and Sky, the Government has no immediate plans to allow filming of jurors, victims and witnesses.

Clive's guests include judges and lawyers with a wide range of views on the impact cameras would have on the trial process. Among them a Scottish Sheriff who has already allowed filming in his own court.

They discuss the arguments for and against allowing broadcasters unrestricted access to the courts 'from gavel to gavel'. What lessons can be learned from experience in other countries, such as in the OJ Simpson and Michael Jackson trials and the more recent Amanda Knox trial?

Would the presence of cameras dissuade people coming forward as witness, lower the esteem of the court or impede justice in any other way? Or is it time for justice to truly be seen to be done?

Producer: Brian King

An Above The Title production for BBC Radio 4.

Clive Anderson and guests discuss plans to allow television cameras into UK courts.

Television Cameras In Court20120421

Clive Anderson and guests discuss plans to allow television cameras into UK courts.

Terrorism2011032320110326

Clive Anderson and some of the country's top lawyers and judges discuss legal issues of the day.

The first programme in the new series looks at the role of the law in the 'war' against terrorism and asks if the right balance is being struck between the interests of fighting terrorism and protecting civil liberties.

Among the guests is the Government's official reviewer of counter-terror laws, Lord Carlile, who has criticised European Court of Human Rights judgments which he says have turned Britain into a safe haven for terrorists.

The programme discusses the law relating to pre-charge detention, deportation, stop and search powers and the new replacements to the controversial control orders, which have been dismissed by some critics as control-lite orders.

Producer: Brian King

An Above The Title production for BBC Radio 4.

Clive Anderson and guests discuss issues raised by anti-terror legislation.

Terrorism2011032320110326

Clive Anderson and some of the country's top lawyers and judges discuss legal issues of the day.

The first programme in the new series looks at the role of the law in the 'war' against terrorism and asks if the right balance is being struck between the interests of fighting terrorism and protecting civil liberties.

Among the guests is the Government's official reviewer of counter-terror laws, Lord Carlile, who has criticised European Court of Human Rights judgments which he says have turned Britain into a safe haven for terrorists.

The programme discusses the law relating to pre-charge detention, deportation, stop and search powers and the new replacements to the controversial control orders, which have been dismissed by some critics as control-lite orders.

Producer: Brian King

An Above The Title production for BBC Radio 4.

Clive Anderson and guests discuss issues raised by anti-terror legislation.

Clive Anderson and some of the country's top lawyers and judges discuss legal issues of the day.

The first programme in the new series looks at the role of the law in the 'war' against terrorism and asks if the right balance is being struck between the interests of fighting terrorism and protecting civil liberties.

Among the guests is the Government's official reviewer of counter-terror laws, Lord Carlile, who has criticised European Court of Human Rights judgments which he says have turned Britain into a safe haven for terrorists.

The programme discusses the law relating to pre-charge detention, deportation, stop and search powers and the new replacements to the controversial control orders, which have been dismissed by some critics as control-lite orders.

Producer: Brian King

An Above The Title production for BBC Radio 4.

Clive Anderson and guests discuss issues raised by anti-terror legislation.

Terrorism20110326
The Law And Artificial Intelligence2015010720150110 (R4)

Clive Anderson asks how the law will act when artificially intelligent robots go wrong.

Clive Anderson ask how our legal system will cope in a fast-approaching world of autonomous cars, care-bots and other machines using artificial intelligence to make judgments normally made by humans.

What will be the legal implications of the use of robotics in healthcare - the introduction of care-bots that not only monitor patients' medical care, but carry meals, crack jokes and remind patients to take medication? Who will be sued for negligence if the care-bot malfunctions - the NHS, the doctor who delegated responsibility to the machine, the manufacturer of the machine or the software company?

The Government is currently changing laws to allow the testing of prototype autonomous self-driving vehicles on UK roads - how will these changes affect motorists? Who will be liable in the event of an accident? What happens if a car is hacked and taken over by a criminal third party? Who has access to data about the car's, and therefore the passenger's, movements?

The development in Japan of therapeutic robots looking like baby seals has raised questions about whether robots should be given human or animal form. What are the legal implications of having to separate a sick child from the malfunctioning robot with which he or she has bonded?

Can a super intelligent robot be legally accountable for the decisions it takes? Who has the intellectual property rights for the creative output of a robot? And can existing laws deal with all these issues or do we need major new legislation to deal with the robotic future?

Produced by Brian King

An Above The Title production for BBC Radio 4.

The Law And Artificial Intelligence2015010720150110 (R4)

Clive Anderson asks how the law will act when artificially intelligent robots go wrong.

Clive Anderson ask how our legal system will cope in a fast-approaching world of autonomous cars, care-bots and other machines using artificial intelligence to make judgments normally made by humans.

What will be the legal implications of the use of robotics in healthcare - the introduction of care-bots that not only monitor patients' medical care, but carry meals, crack jokes and remind patients to take medication? Who will be sued for negligence if the care-bot malfunctions - the NHS, the doctor who delegated responsibility to the machine, the manufacturer of the machine or the software company?

The Government is currently changing laws to allow the testing of prototype autonomous self-driving vehicles on UK roads - how will these changes affect motorists? Who will be liable in the event of an accident? What happens if a car is hacked and taken over by a criminal third party? Who has access to data about the car's, and therefore the passenger's, movements?

The development in Japan of therapeutic robots looking like baby seals has raised questions about whether robots should be given human or animal form. What are the legal implications of having to separate a sick child from the malfunctioning robot with which he or she has bonded?

Can a super intelligent robot be legally accountable for the decisions it takes? Who has the intellectual property rights for the creative output of a robot? And can existing laws deal with all these issues or do we need major new legislation to deal with the robotic future?

Produced by Brian King

An Above The Title production for BBC Radio 4.

The Law And Climate Change2009052720090530

Are our environmental laws robust enough to save the planet for humankind? The Climate Change Act 2008 commits the UK to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80 per cent by 2050, but can this be legally enforced? What law and penalties are available to force industry, individuals and even the government to reduce their carbon footprint?

The Law And Climate Change2009052720090530

Are our environmental laws robust enough to save the planet for humankind? The Climate Change Act 2008 commits the UK to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80 per cent by 2050, but can this be legally enforced? What law and penalties are available to force industry, individuals and even the government to reduce their carbon footprint?

The Law And Climate Change20090530

Are our environmental laws robust enough to save the planet for humankind?

The Law and Climate Change20170927

"Clive Anderson and guests discuss the role the law can play in reducing climate change.

Can lawyers save the planet? Clive Anderson and guests discuss the role the law can play in reducing global warming.

The devastation caused in the Caribbean by Hurricane Irma is being blamed on global warming. The Prime Minister of Antigua and Barbuda, Gaston Brown says the worldâ€TMs major emitters of greenhouse gasses should be held responsible. But what law or court could achieve that?

A new scientific study says 30 per cent of the impact of global warming can be traced to the activities of just 90 companies. But what law or court could hold them liable?

On June 1, 2017, Donald Trump announced that the US was withdrawing from the Paris Agreement on climate change mitigation because it undermined his countryâ€TMs economy. Can lawyers force the US to rejoin?

In 2015 the Urgenda Foundation won a landmark court case which forced the Dutch government to increase its efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Similar court battles have since been won elsewhere in the world, most recently in South Africa where judges ruled against government support for a new coal-fired power station.

Legal experts representing both environmental and commercial interests discuss the strengths and weakness of current laws and regulations controlling greenhouse gas emissions. Do we need a specialised International Court on the Environment with powers to force governments and individual businesses to reduce emissions? Does the US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement undermine legal efforts to mitigate climate change? Can courts force companies to take measures which put them at a commercial disadvantage in the international market? How will Brexit affect climate change regulations in the UK?

An Above The Title production for BBC Radio 4.

"

The Law and Climate Change20170927

Clive Anderson and guests discuss the role the law can play in reducing climate change.

Can lawyers save the planet? Clive Anderson and guests discuss the role the law can play in reducing global warming.

The devastation caused in the Caribbean by Hurricane Irma is being blamed on global warming. The Prime Minister of Antigua and Barbuda, Gaston Brown says the worldâ€TMs major emitters of greenhouse gasses should be held responsible. But what law or court could achieve that?

A new scientific study says 30 per cent of the impact of global warming can be traced to the activities of just 90 companies. But what law or court could hold them liable?

On June 1, 2017, Donald Trump announced that the US was withdrawing from the Paris Agreement on climate change mitigation because it undermined his countryâ€TMs economy. Can lawyers force the US to rejoin?

In 2015 the Urgenda Foundation won a landmark court case which forced the Dutch government to increase its efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Similar court battles have since been won elsewhere in the world, most recently in South Africa where judges ruled against government support for a new coal-fired power station.

Legal experts representing both environmental and commercial interests discuss the strengths and weakness of current laws and regulations controlling greenhouse gas emissions. Do we need a specialised International Court on the Environment with powers to force governments and individual businesses to reduce emissions? Does the US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement undermine legal efforts to mitigate climate change? Can courts force companies to take measures which put them at a commercial disadvantage in the international market? How will Brexit affect climate change regulations in the UK?

An Above The Title production for BBC Radio 4.

The Law And Climate Change20170927

Clive Anderson and guests discuss the role the law can play in reducing climate change.

Can lawyers save the planet? Clive Anderson and guests discuss the role the law can play in reducing global warming.

The devastation caused in the Caribbean by Hurricane Irma is being blamed on global warming. The Prime Minister of Antigua and Barbuda, Gaston Brown says the worldâ€TMs major emitters of greenhouse gasses should be held responsible. But what law or court could achieve that?

A new scientific study says 30 per cent of the impact of global warming can be traced to the activities of just 90 companies. But what law or court could hold them liable?

On June 1, 2017, Donald Trump announced that the US was withdrawing from the Paris Agreement on climate change mitigation because it undermined his countryâ€TMs economy. Can lawyers force the US to rejoin?

In 2015 the Urgenda Foundation won a landmark court case which forced the Dutch government to increase its efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Similar court battles have since been won elsewhere in the world, most recently in South Africa where judges ruled against government support for a new coal-fired power station.

Legal experts representing both environmental and commercial interests discuss the strengths and weakness of current laws and regulations controlling greenhouse gas emissions. Do we need a specialised International Court on the Environment with powers to force governments and individual businesses to reduce emissions? Does the US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement undermine legal efforts to mitigate climate change? Can courts force companies to take measures which put them at a commercial disadvantage in the international market? How will Brexit affect climate change regulations in the UK?

An Above The Title production for BBC Radio 4.

The Law And Climate Change20170927

Clive Anderson and guests discuss the role the law can play in reducing climate change.

Can lawyers save the planet? Clive Anderson and guests discuss the role the law can play in reducing global warming.

The devastation caused in the Caribbean by Hurricane Irma is being blamed on global warming. The Prime Minister of Antigua and Barbuda, Gaston Brown says the worldâ€TMs major emitters of greenhouse gasses should be held responsible. But what law or court could achieve that?

A new scientific study says 30 per cent of the impact of global warming can be traced to the activities of just 90 companies. But what law or court could hold them liable?

On June 1, 2017, Donald Trump announced that the US was withdrawing from the Paris Agreement on climate change mitigation because it undermined his countryâ€TMs economy. Can lawyers force the US to rejoin?

In 2015 the Urgenda Foundation won a landmark court case which forced the Dutch government to increase its efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Similar court battles have since been won elsewhere in the world, most recently in South Africa where judges ruled against government support for a new coal-fired power station.

Legal experts representing both environmental and commercial interests discuss the strengths and weakness of current laws and regulations controlling greenhouse gas emissions. Do we need a specialised International Court on the Environment with powers to force governments and individual businesses to reduce emissions? Does the US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement undermine legal efforts to mitigate climate change? Can courts force companies to take measures which put them at a commercial disadvantage in the international market? How will Brexit affect climate change regulations in the UK?

An Above The Title production for BBC Radio 4.

The Law And Cohabitation2013052220130525

In the first of a new series, Clive Anderson's guests struggle to reconcile their differences regarding reform of the way the law treats unmarried cohabiting couples when their relationships break up.

There are over four million co-habiting couples in England and Wales. Research suggests that a great number of them think the law, broadly speaking, affords them the same protection as married couples. It turns out they could not be more wrong.

The programme hears that the widely held belief that cohabiting couples acquire common law marriage status is a complete myth.

Barrister and Lib Dem peer Lord Anthony Lester's argues for root and branch reform to provide legal protection for cohabiting couples. But he is strongly opposed by his cross-bench colleague in the House of Lords, Baroness Ruth Deech, who staunchly defends the special legal status granted those who marry.

While there is little agreement among Clive's guests about what changes, if any, should be made to the law, they all agree that much more needs to be done to make cohabitating couples more aware about their lack of legal rights.

Producer: Brian King

An Above the Title production for BBC Radio 4.

The Law And Cohabitation2013052220130525

In the first of a new series, Clive Anderson's guests struggle to reconcile their differences regarding reform of the way the law treats unmarried cohabiting couples when their relationships break up.

There are over four million co-habiting couples in England and Wales. Research suggests that a great number of them think the law, broadly speaking, affords them the same protection as married couples. It turns out they could not be more wrong.

The programme hears that the widely held belief that cohabiting couples acquire common law marriage status is a complete myth.

Barrister and Lib Dem peer Lord Anthony Lester's argues for root and branch reform to provide legal protection for cohabiting couples. But he is strongly opposed by his cross-bench colleague in the House of Lords, Baroness Ruth Deech, who staunchly defends the special legal status granted those who marry.

While there is little agreement among Clive's guests about what changes, if any, should be made to the law, they all agree that much more needs to be done to make cohabitating couples more aware about their lack of legal rights.

Producer: Brian King

An Above the Title production for BBC Radio 4.

In the first of a new series, Clive Anderson and senior lawyers, judges and other legal experts explore the chaotic state of the law affecting unmarried cohabiting couples and expose the 'myth' of common law marriage.

With a rising trend in cohabitation and an increase in the number of adults and children left in poverty after relationship breakdowns, many people are calling for reform of the law. They argue that the law affecting unmarried cohabiting couples is full of internal contradictions and arbitrary distinctions.

There are over four million co-habiting couples in England and Wales. Research suggests that most of them think the law, broadly speaking, affords them the same protection as married couples. It would seem they could not be more wrong.

In January of this year, Court of Appeal judge Lord Justice Toulson said a woman who lost her home and business when she split from her partner of more than three decades was a victim of sexist property laws.

This programme debates the wide gap between the way the law treats those who are married and those living together, and examines conflicting arguments about the need for reform.

The Law And Death2009051320090516

Medical science has given us increasing control over when, where and how we die, but the law is struggling to keep pace.

Clive and his guests explore the ongoing legal arguments about assisted suicide, mercy killing and even the precise definition of death.

The Law And Death2009051320090516

Medical science has given us increasing control over when, where and how we die, but the law is struggling to keep pace.

Clive and his guests explore the ongoing legal arguments about assisted suicide, mercy killing and even the precise definition of death.

The Law And Death20090516

Clive Anderson and guests explore the ongoing legal arguments about assisted suicide.

The Law And Drugs

The Law And Drugs2010010620100109

How might drug use be regulated in a decriminalised future?

Clive Anderson presents the series analysing the legal issues of the day.

There is a growing body of opinion in the legal world that the 'war on drugs' has failed and that decriminalisation of drugs is the only way ahead. What are the shortcomings of the existing Misuse of Drugs Act, and how might drug use be regulated in a decriminalised future?

An Above The Title production for BBC Radio 4.

The Law And Drugs2010010620100109

How might drug use be regulated in a decriminalised future?

Clive Anderson presents the series analysing the legal issues of the day.

There is a growing body of opinion in the legal world that the 'war on drugs' has failed and that decriminalisation of drugs is the only way ahead.

What are the shortcomings of the existing Misuse of Drugs Act, and how might drug use be regulated in a decriminalised future?

An Above The Title production for BBC Radio 4.

How might drug use be regulated in a decriminalised future?

Clive Anderson presents the series analysing the legal issues of the day.

There is a growing body of opinion in the legal world that the 'war on drugs' has failed and that decriminalisation of drugs is the only way ahead. What are the shortcomings of the existing Misuse of Drugs Act, and how might drug use be regulated in a decriminalised future?

An Above The Title production for BBC Radio 4.

The Law And Drugs20100109
The Law And Government Spending Cuts20111019

Clive Anderson and some of the country's top lawyers and judges discuss legal issues of the day.

The first programme in the new series looks at how the courts are increasingly being used to try to prevent government and local authorities from implementing spending cuts.

A large number of legal actions have already been launched challenging proposed cuts in such things as disability benefits, libraries, advice centres, national parks and school building.

Are such cases likely to be successful, or will they simply delay the implementation of the cuts or force reductions in other services? And are the courts being drawn into the political arena, effectively threatening the operation of government and sovereignty of parliament?

Claimant lawyers and those acting for government and local authorities discuss the issues.

Producer: Brian King

An Above The Title production for BBC Radio 4.

Clive Anderson and guests discuss the major legal issues of the day.

The Law And Government Spending Cuts20111022

In the first of a new series, Clive Anderson and guests discuss how the courts are increasingly being used to try to prevent government and local authorities from implementing spending cuts.

Clive is joined by former Justice Secretary Lord Falconer, human rights lawyer, Hugh Southey QC, former appeal court Judge, Sir Stephen Sedley and solicitor Louise Whitfield, who specialises in representing clients fighting spending cuts.

They discuss how human rights and equalities law can be used to stop government or local authorities from cutting back on such things as disability benefits, libraries, advice centres, national parks and school building.

While acknowledging that the courts have a legitimate role in ensuring that public bodies fulfil their legal obligations, he admits that he and his government colleagues were often more than a little peeved at being prevented from doing the things they wanted to do.

But how likely is it that challenges to spending cuts will be successful? Will such legal action simply delay the implementation of the cuts or force reductions in other services? And are the courts being drawn into the political arena, effectively threatening the sovereignty of parliament?

Producer: Brian King

An Above The Title production for BBC Radio 4.

Clive Anderson and guests discuss the major legal issues of the day.

The Law And Parenthood2015050620150509 (R4)

Clive Anderson and guests discuss how the law balances the rights of parents and children.

In the first of a news series, Clive Anderson and a panel of senior lawyers, judges and other experts discuss how the law balances the sometimes conflicting interests of parents and their children.

The law states clearly that the welfare of the child is "paramount", but how is this to be established and what happens when the interests of a child conflict with those of a parent? Who should decide what is in the best interests of a child in the first place - the parents or the state? What exactly are the responsibilities and rights of parents in relation to a child's education, medical care or home?

Sir Mark Potter, former President of the High Court Family Division, and senior lawyers experienced in representing children and parents shed light on the difficult decisions the courts have to wrestle with - such as the case of Ashya King, removed by his parents from Southampton General Hospital, raising a raft of legal, ethical and moral issues.

How are legal decisions arrived at when separating parents disagree about how a child should be educated, or where one parent wants to take the child to another country? And if the welfare of the child is paramount, should it be made easier for children to take their parents to court to fight for their rights?

Producer: Brian King

An Above The Title production for BBC Radio 4.

The Law And Parenthood2015050620150509 (R4)

In the first of a news series, Clive Anderson and a panel of senior lawyers, judges and other experts discuss how the law balances the sometimes conflicting interests of parents and their children.

The law states clearly that the welfare of the child is "paramount", but how is this to be established and what happens when the interests of a child conflict with those of a parent? Who should decide what is in the best interests of a child in the first place - the parents or the state? What exactly are the responsibilities and rights of parents in relation to a child's education, medical care or home?

Sir Mark Potter, former President of the High Court Family Division, and senior lawyers experienced in representing children and parents shed light on the difficult decisions the courts have to wrestle with - such as the case of Ashya King, removed by his parents from Southampton General Hospital, raising a raft of legal, ethical and moral issues.

How are legal decisions arrived at when separating parents disagree about how a child should be educated, or where one parent wants to take the child to another country? And if the welfare of the child is paramount, should it be made easier for children to take their parents to court to fight for their rights?

Producer: Brian King

An Above The Title production for BBC Radio 4.

Clive Anderson and guests discuss how the law balances the rights of parents and children.

The Law And Protest2009052020090523

Clive Anderson presents the series analysing the legal issues of the day.

Conflict between police and G20 demonstrators raised serious questions about the distinctions in law between our right to peaceful protest and police powers to prevent violence and disorder.

What are the legal limits of our right to express dissent? Is it acceptable for police to use powers under the Terrorism Act to prevent demonstrations and is the police tactic of 'kettling' to control crowds actually legal?

Clive Anderson considers the legal limits of our right to express dissent.

The Law And Protest2009052020090523

Clive Anderson presents the series analysing the legal issues of the day.

Conflict between police and G20 demonstrators raised serious questions about the distinctions in law between our right to peaceful protest and police powers to prevent violence and disorder.

What are the legal limits of our right to express dissent? Is it acceptable for police to use powers under the Terrorism Act to prevent demonstrations and is the police tactic of 'kettling' to control crowds actually legal?

Clive Anderson considers the legal limits of our right to express dissent.

The Law And Protest20090523

Clive Anderson considers the legal limits of our right to express dissent.

The Law And Rape2015012820150131 (R4)

Clive Anderson asks if the UK legal system is letting down the victims of rape.

Convictions for rape in the UK are described as "shockingly low". Why does the law appear to be failing to protect women? Clive Anderson discusses what needs to be done to improve the situation with the Director of Public Prosecutions Alison Saunders, Assistant Metropolitan Police Commissioner Martin Hewitt and two leading lawyers working in the area.

Solicitor Harriet Wistrich, founder of the campaign group Justice For Women, welcomes moves by the Police and the Crown Prosecution Service to improve the way they deal with rape cases. But she says her experience suggests the message is not always reaching individual prosecutors and police officers.

Barrister and law lecturer Catarina Sjolin worries that the police and the CPS don't have the resources to deal with a huge increase in rape cases, pointing out that it can take two years between a rape being reported and a verdict.

How effective is the new Crown Prosecution Service and Police action plan on rape, which is aimed at increasing convictions? How should the CPS approach 'difficult' cases? And to what extent should the Police and CPS pursue women who falsely claim to have been raped?

Producer name: Brian King

An Above The Title production for BBC Radio 4.

The Law And Rape2015012820150131 (R4)

Convictions for rape in the UK are described as "shockingly low". Why does the law appear to be failing to protect women? Clive Anderson discusses what needs to be done to improve the situation with the Director of Public Prosecutions Alison Saunders, Assistant Metropolitan Police Commissioner Martin Hewitt and two leading lawyers working in the area.

Solicitor Harriet Wistrich, founder of the campaign group Justice For Women, welcomes moves by the Police and the Crown Prosecution Service to improve the way they deal with rape cases. But she says her experience suggests the message is not always reaching individual prosecutors and police officers.

Barrister and law lecturer Catarina Sjolin worries that the police and the CPS don't have the resources to deal with a huge increase in rape cases, pointing out that it can take two years between a rape being reported and a verdict.

How effective is the new Crown Prosecution Service and Police action plan on rape, which is aimed at increasing convictions? How should the CPS approach 'difficult' cases? And to what extent should the Police and CPS pursue women who falsely claim to have been raped?

Producer name: Brian King

An Above The Title production for BBC Radio 4.

Clive Anderson asks if the UK legal system is letting down the victims of rape.

The Law And The Gender Pay Gap2015051320150516 (R4)

Clive Anderson asks why the law is struggling to reduce the gender pay gap.

Clive Anderson and a panel of senior legal experts discuss the apparent failure of the 1970 Equal Pay Act to bridge the gender pay gap.

Among those taking part is solicitor Michael Newman - currently acting on behalf of hundreds of female workers at the supermarket chain Asda, who claim they are being paid less than male colleagues for work of equal value. Since the case began last year, more than 19,000 people have approached the lawyers involved asking for their cases to be taken up.

Also taking part are lawyers who act for employers in equal pay disputes and a legal officer with the union Unison.

Equal pay is the single biggest issue facing employment tribunals, which have dealt with 700,000 claims in the past 15 years. Barrister and academic Sarah Fraser Butlin tells the programme that court actions have replaced union collective bargaining as a force for social change in this area, but believes that it is an extraordinarily inefficient way to bring fairness to the pay system.

Fighting court cases costs local authorities and business millions and the consequences of losing the litigation battle have enormous implications for the wage bill. Why is it necessary for same many individual court cases to be brought? Is there a better way of achieve payroll justice?

Producer: Brian King

An Above The Title production for BBC Radio 4.

The Law And The Unborn2009050620090509

Clive Anderson presents the series analysing the legal issues of the day.

Developments in human reproductive technologies give rise to a range of legal and ethical controversies around fertilization, cloning, surrogacy and abortion.

The new Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act makes legal the creation of 'saviour siblings' and hybrid animal-human embryos for scientific research.

Does the law provide enough protection for the unborn? Clive considers who decides what can be done to an embryo and when, in law, life begins.

An Above the Title production for BBC Radio 4.

Clive Anderson discusses the new Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act.

The Law And The Unborn2009050620090509

Clive Anderson presents the series analysing the legal issues of the day.

Developments in human reproductive technologies give rise to a range of legal and ethical controversies around fertilization, cloning, surrogacy and abortion.

The new Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act makes legal the creation of 'saviour siblings' and hybrid animal-human embryos for scientific research.

Does the law provide enough protection for the unborn? Clive considers who decides what can be done to an embryo and when, in law, life begins.

An Above the Title production for BBC Radio 4.

Clive Anderson discusses the new Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act.

The Law And The Unborn20090509
The Law Of The Road2015052720150530 (R4)

Clive Anderson and a panel of legal experts discuss how changes to our traffic laws could reduce the numbers of motorists, cyclists and pedestrians killed or injured on the road.?

Our road traffic laws effectively offer everyone at the age of 17 the opportunity to take to the wheel of a car - even under the influence of a modest amount of alcohol. Our roads are governed by a complex set of rules and regulations which are often hard to understand - and even harder to enforce.

The discussion ranges across raising the legal driving age, lowering speed limits, imposing stricter penalties for drink-driving and other offences, and reversing the burden of proof for the most serious motoring offences.

Do the penalties available to magistrates and judges provide sufficient deterrent to breaking the laws of the road? And do the courts make sufficient distinction between motorists who flout the laws - violators - and those who merely make mistakes? Should a motorist who drives carelessly and collides with a pedestrian be punished more severely than one who collides with a tree?

Clive's guests are Sally Kyd Cunningham, professor of law at the University of Leicester who specialises in road traffic offences; Julian Hunt, former crown prosecutor and now a barrister who both defends and prosecutes in road traffic cases; Richard Monkhouse, chair of the Magistrates Association with over 18 years' experience as a lay justice; and Simeon Maskrey QC, barrister, Deputy High Court Judge, Recorder of the Crown Court and keen cyclist who admits that he's been known to break the law by jumping red lights in order to escape the attention of thundering lorries.

Producer: Brian King

An Above the Title production for BBC Radio 4.

Clive Anderson and a panel of legal experts discuss what changes could be made to our traffic laws to reduce the numbers of motorists, cyclists and pedestrians killed or injured on the road.

Specialist defence lawyers lock horns with prosecutors, magistrates and academic lawyers with a range of views about how the law could be changed to improve matters.

The discussion ranges across imposing "strict liability" on motorists involved in collision with cyclists, raising the legal driving age, stricter drink-driving laws (as in Scotland), and even a counter-intuitive proposal to remove speed limits and other traffic controlling measures.

The Law Of The Road2015052720150530 (R4)

Clive Anderson and a panel of legal experts discuss what changes could be made to our traffic laws to reduce the numbers of motorists, cyclists and pedestrians killed or injured on the road.

Specialist defence lawyers lock horns with prosecutors, magistrates and academic lawyers with a range of views about how the law could be changed to improve matters.

The discussion ranges across imposing "strict liability" on motorists involved in collision with cyclists, raising the legal driving age, stricter drink-driving laws (as in Scotland), and even a counter-intuitive proposal to remove speed limits and other traffic controlling measures.

Producer: Brian King

An Above the Title production for BBC Radio 4.

Clive Anderson and a panel of legal experts discuss how changes to our traffic laws could reduce the numbers of motorists, cyclists and pedestrians killed or injured on the road.?

Our road traffic laws effectively offer everyone at the age of 17 the opportunity to take to the wheel of a car - even under the influence of a modest amount of alcohol. Our roads are governed by a complex set of rules and regulations which are often hard to understand - and even harder to enforce.

The discussion ranges across raising the legal driving age, lowering speed limits, imposing stricter penalties for drink-driving and other offences, and reversing the burden of proof for the most serious motoring offences.

Do the penalties available to magistrates and judges provide sufficient deterrent to breaking the laws of the road? And do the courts make sufficient distinction between motorists who flout the laws - violators - and those who merely make mistakes? Should a motorist who drives carelessly and collides with a pedestrian be punished more severely than one who collides with a tree?

Clive's guests are Sally Kyd Cunningham, professor of law at the University of Leicester who specialises in road traffic offences; Julian Hunt, former crown prosecutor and now a barrister who both defends and prosecutes in road traffic cases; Richard Monkhouse, chair of the Magistrates Association with over 18 years' experience as a lay justice; and Simeon Maskrey QC, barrister, Deputy High Court Judge, Recorder of the Crown Court and keen cyclist who admits that he's been known to break the law by jumping red lights in order to escape the attention of thundering lorries.

Producer: Brian King

An Above the Title production for BBC Radio 4.

The Lawyer's Dilemma: Defending The Guilty, Suing The Innocent20111102

Clive Anderson and some of the country's top lawyers and judges discuss legal issues of the day.

The third programme in the series explores the moral and ethical dilemmas faced by lawyers including those who are required to defend clients accused of rape, murder and other heinous crimes. What should a lawyer do if he or she knows or strongly suspects that a client is guilty?

The brutal cross-examination in court of the parents of murdered schoolgirl Millie Dowler raised concerns about the rules that control the limits to which a lawyer can go to defend a client in court. Are the rules fair?

Solicitors and barristers involved in both criminal and civil cases discuss how they work on the knife edge between different principles which make competing calls on them. Should their actions be more closely regulated or can we rely on their professional judgment?

Producer: Brian King

An Above The Title production for BBC Radio 4.

Clive Anderson and guests explore the moral and ethical dilemmas faced by lawyers.

The Lawyer's Dilemma: Defending The Guilty, Suing The Innocent20111105

Clive Anderson and some of the country's top lawyers and judges discuss legal issues of the day.

The third programme in the series explores the moral and ethical dilemmas faced by lawyers including those who are required to defend clients accused of rape, murder and other heinous crimes. What should a lawyer do if he or she knows or strongly suspects that a client is guilty?

The brutal cross-examination in court of the parents of murdered schoolgirl Millie Dowler raised concerns about the rules that control the limits to which a lawyer can go to defend a client in court. Are the rules fair?

Among Clive's guests is Jeremy Moore, the solicitor who had briefed the defence barrister in the Millie Dowler murder trial. He staunchly defends the cross-examination tactics.

The other guests are leading barristers Chris Sallon QC and Dinah Rose QC and Court of Appeal judge Lord Justice Alan Moses, who defend the legal profession against a range of criticisms levelled by the public.

Clive Anderson asks if the behaviour of lawyers needs to be more closely regulated or if we can we rely on their professional judgment?

Producer: Brian King

An Above The Title production for BBC Radio 4.

Clive Anderson and guests explore the moral and ethical dilemmas faced by lawyers.

The Privy Council20010403

Clive Anderson airs topical legal issues.

He is joined by a panel of experts to discuss the role and powers of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, the highest court of appeal for many Commonwealth countries and UK overseas territories.

The Privy Council20010403

Clive Anderson airs topical legal issues.

He is joined by a panel of experts to discuss the role and powers of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, the highest court of appeal for many Commonwealth countries and UK overseas territories.

Too Much Information

Too Much Information20091223

A major study has claimed that a quarter of government databases are illegal and lead to vulnerable people being victimised.

Just how much information about us is in circulation and what are our rights to access, control and erase it?

Too Much Information20091223

A major study has claimed that a quarter of government databases are illegal and lead to vulnerable people being victimised.

Just how much information about us is in circulation and what are our rights to access, control and erase it?

Trade Unions20110105

With strikes apparently back in fashion, Unreliable Evidence explores the law relating to trades unions and industrial action.

Wildcat strikes and secondary picketing are now illegal, and new legislation imposes complex rules on how and when strikes can be called. Clive Anderson and guests, including a judge and the assistant general secretary of one of Britain's largest unions, discuss why both employers and trades unions are now, increasingly, fighting each other in the courts.

Also taking part are the senior barristers who have represented either side in the ongoing British Airways cabin staff dispute. Alleged irregularities in the strike balloting process have already resulted in a series of court hearings, injunctions and high court appeals.

Both the TUC and the CBI are calling for reform of trades union law, but whom does the law currently favour - the bosses or the workers?

Producer: Brian King

An Above The Title production for BBC Radio 4.

Clive Anderson and some of the country's top lawyers discuss the legal issues of the day.

Trade Unions20110108
Transitional Justice2012042520120428

Clive Anderson and top legal experts discuss what role the international community should play in helping to achieve justice in the wake of massive human rights violations in Arab Spring countries.

What form of justice system is best placed to heal the wounds of years of oppression? Do criminal courts satisfactorily address the horrors of a long and brutal regime? Or are truth and reconciliation commissions better placed to allow a society to move forward?

And should the task of establishing truth, accountability and redress for past abuses be left to individual countries, or is it essential for the United Nations and international lawyers to become involved?

Lawyers and judges with experience of 'transitional justice' processes reflect on whether justice was achieved in the past, in Sierra Leone, Rwanda, Iraq, South Africa and Yugoslavia, and argue about the best way forward in Libya, Egypt and Tunisia.

Among the guests, Libyan lawyer Elham Saudi, who argues that the important thing is that transitional justice is introduced 'organically' and takes the form that the people want. Also taking part is Geoffrey Robertson QC who served as the first President of the Special Court in Sierra Leone.

Producer: Brian King

An Above The Title production for BBC Radio 4.

Clive Anderson and guests discuss how justice can be achieved in the Arab Spring states.

Clive Anderson and top legal experts discuss the best way to achieve justice in the wake of massive human rights violations in the Arab Spring countries. What role should the international community play in the process?

Libyan lawyer Elham Saudi and US ambassador-at-large for war crimes issues, Stephen Rapp, reflect on how successfully transitional justice was achieved in the past, in Sierra Leone, Rwanda, Iraq, South Africa and Yugoslavia, and argue about the best way forward in Libya as well as in Egypt and Tunisia.

Should prominent members of the former Libyan regime, such as Saif Gadaffi, be tried in Libya, where they would face the death penalty, or dealt with in the International Criminal Court in The Hague?

Other guests on the programme are Claudio Cordone of the International Centre for Transitional Justice and Geoffrey Robertson QC who served as the first President of the Special Court in Sierra Leone.

Are criminal trials the best way to address the horrors of a long and brutal regime? Or are truth and reconciliation commissions better placed to allow a society to move forward? And if there are to be trials, should members of revolutionary forces also be prosecuted for human rights violations?

Transitional Justice2012042520120428

Clive Anderson and top legal experts discuss what role the international community should play in helping to achieve justice in the wake of massive human rights violations in Arab Spring countries.

What form of justice system is best placed to heal the wounds of years of oppression? Do criminal courts satisfactorily address the horrors of a long and brutal regime? Or are truth and reconciliation commissions better placed to allow a society to move forward?

And should the task of establishing truth, accountability and redress for past abuses be left to individual countries, or is it essential for the United Nations and international lawyers to become involved?

Lawyers and judges with experience of 'transitional justice' processes reflect on whether justice was achieved in the past, in Sierra Leone, Rwanda, Iraq, South Africa and Yugoslavia, and argue about the best way forward in Libya, Egypt and Tunisia.

Among the guests, Libyan lawyer Elham Saudi, who argues that the important thing is that transitional justice is introduced 'organically' and takes the form that the people want. Also taking part is Geoffrey Robertson QC who served as the first President of the Special Court in Sierra Leone.

Producer: Brian King

An Above The Title production for BBC Radio 4.

Clive Anderson and guests discuss how justice can be achieved in the Arab Spring states.

Clive Anderson and top legal experts discuss the best way to achieve justice in the wake of massive human rights violations in the Arab Spring countries. What role should the international community play in the process?

Libyan lawyer Elham Saudi and US ambassador-at-large for war crimes issues, Stephen Rapp, reflect on how successfully transitional justice was achieved in the past, in Sierra Leone, Rwanda, Iraq, South Africa and Yugoslavia, and argue about the best way forward in Libya as well as in Egypt and Tunisia.

Should prominent members of the former Libyan regime, such as Saif Gadaffi, be tried in Libya, where they would face the death penalty, or dealt with in the International Criminal Court in The Hague?

Other guests on the programme are Claudio Cordone of the International Centre for Transitional Justice and Geoffrey Robertson QC who served as the first President of the Special Court in Sierra Leone.

Are criminal trials the best way to address the horrors of a long and brutal regime? Or are truth and reconciliation commissions better placed to allow a society to move forward? And if there are to be trials, should members of revolutionary forces also be prosecuted for human rights violations?

Clive Anderson and top legal experts discuss what role the international community should play in helping to achieve justice in the wake of massive human rights violations in Arab Spring countries.

What form of justice system is best placed to heal the wounds of years of oppression? Do criminal courts satisfactorily address the horrors of a long and brutal regime? Or are truth and reconciliation commissions better placed to allow a society to move forward?

And should the task of establishing truth, accountability and redress for past abuses be left to individual countries, or is it essential for the United Nations and international lawyers to become involved?

Lawyers and judges with experience of 'transitional justice' processes reflect on whether justice was achieved in the past, in Sierra Leone, Rwanda, Iraq, South Africa and Yugoslavia, and argue about the best way forward in Libya, Egypt and Tunisia.

Among the guests, Libyan lawyer Elham Saudi, who argues that the important thing is that transitional justice is introduced 'organically' and takes the form that the people want. Also taking part is Geoffrey Robertson QC who served as the first President of the Special Court in Sierra Leone.

Producer: Brian King

An Above The Title production for BBC Radio 4.

Clive Anderson and guests discuss how justice can be achieved in the Arab Spring states.

Transitional Justice20120428

Clive Anderson and top legal experts discuss the best way to achieve justice in the wake of massive human rights violations in the Arab Spring countries. What role should the international community play in the process?

Libyan lawyer Elham Saudi and US ambassador-at-large for war crimes issues, Stephen Rapp, reflect on how successfully transitional justice was achieved in the past, in Sierra Leone, Rwanda, Iraq, South Africa and Yugoslavia, and argue about the best way forward in Libya as well as in Egypt and Tunisia.

Should prominent members of the former Libyan regime, such as Saif Gadaffi, be tried in Libya, where they would face the death penalty, or dealt with in the International Criminal Court in The Hague?

Other guests on the programme are Claudio Cordone of the International Centre for Transitional Justice and Geoffrey Robertson QC who served as the first President of the Special Court in Sierra Leone.

Are criminal trials the best way to address the horrors of a long and brutal regime? Or are truth and reconciliation commissions better placed to allow a society to move forward? And if there are to be trials, should members of revolutionary forces also be prosecuted for human rights violations?

Producer: Brian King

An Above The Title production for BBC Radio 4.

Clive Anderson and guests discuss how justice can be achieved in the Arab Spring states.

Transsexual People And The Law20050419

The flagship law programme continues with Clive Anderson and eminent guests discussing how transsexuality is treated under English law.

On 4 April, the Gender Recognition Act came into force.

What was the impetus behind the Act, and how does this change life for transsexual people? What are the implications for employment, marriage and sports law? And what issues of sex discrimination and privacy arise?

Transsexual People And The Law20050419

The flagship law programme continues with Clive Anderson and eminent guests discussing how transsexuality is treated under English law.

On 4 April, the Gender Recognition Act came into force.

What was the impetus behind the Act, and how does this change life for transsexual people? What are the implications for employment, marriage and sports law? And what issues of sex discrimination and privacy arise?

Unfair Dismissal2012121920121222

Clive Anderson and guests discuss controversial proposed changes in employment law.

Clive Anderson and guests discuss concerns that proposed government changes to employment law are nudging us towards a US-style 'fire at will' culture.

Business secretary Vince Cable plans to cut 'red tape' in employment law in order to promote economic growth. But the proposals, which include a cut in how much workers can claim for unfair dismissal, have raised fears that workers' rights are being eroded.

With many recession-hit businesses looking for ways to downsize their workforces, and the government determined to simplify dismissal procedures, this programme asks if current employment law strikes the right balance between protecting job security and allowing employers the flexibility to adjust their staffing levels.

Leading lawyers representing the interests of employers and employees explain how current law works in the areas of dismissal and redundancy and argue about the need for further change.

Producer: Brian King

An Above the Title production for BBC Radio 4.

Unfair Dismissal2012121920121222

Clive Anderson and guests discuss controversial proposed changes in employment law.

Clive Anderson and guests discuss controversial proposed changes in employment law.

Clive Anderson and guests discuss concerns that proposed government changes to employment law are nudging us towards a US-style 'fire at will' culture.

Business secretary Vince Cable plans to cut 'red tape' in employment law in order to promote economic growth. But the proposals, which include a cut in how much workers can claim for unfair dismissal, have raised fears that workers' rights are being eroded.

With many recession-hit businesses looking for ways to downsize their workforces, and the government determined to simplify dismissal procedures, this programme asks if current employment law strikes the right balance between protecting job security and allowing employers the flexibility to adjust their staffing levels.

Leading lawyers representing the interests of employers and employees explain how current law works in the areas of dismissal and redundancy and argue about the need for further change.

Producer: Brian King

An Above the Title production for BBC Radio 4.

Clive Anderson and guests discuss concerns that proposed government changes to employment law are nudging us towards a US-style 'fire at will' culture.

Business secretary Vince Cable plans to cut 'red tape' in employment law in order to promote economic growth. But the proposals, which include a cut in how much workers can claim for unfair dismissal, have raised fears that workers' rights are being eroded.

With many recession-hit businesses looking for ways to downsize their workforces, and the government determined to simplify dismissal procedures, this programme asks if current employment law strikes the right balance between protecting job security and allowing employers the flexibility to adjust their staffing levels.

Leading lawyers representing the interests of employers and employees explain how current law works in the areas of dismissal and redundancy and argue about the need for further change.

Producer: Brian King

An Above the Title production for BBC Radio 4.

War And The Rule Of Law20030513

Clive Anderson presents the series demystifying legal issues.

Today he examines International Law and its function before, during and after a war.

War And The Rule Of Law20030513

Clive Anderson presents the series demystifying legal issues.

Today he examines International Law and its function before, during and after a war.

Whistleblowers2013091820130921

Clive Anderson and guests ask if the law offers enough protection to whistleblowers.

Clive Anderson's guests call for new laws both to encourage employees to report criminal behaviour and malpractice in their organisations and to protect them if they blow the whistle.

The programme brings together leading lawyers to discuss the developing law relating to whistle-blowing and to consider concerns that the law does not adequately protect employees from unfair dismissal, bullying or blacklisting.

In the wake of the Libor scandal and disturbing revelations about NHS care, does the law offer sufficient safeguards to employees who report a criminal offence, miscarriage of justice, danger to someone's health and safety or damage to the environment?

Cathy James, chief executive of the whistle-blower charity, Public Concern at Work, reveals that three out of four people interviewed say nothing ever happens when they complain about bad practices within the workplace. The programme hears that, despite legislation designed to prevent victimisation of whistle-blowers, most people are still scared to raise their head above the parapet.

Robert Francis QC, who chaired the public inquiry into the Mid Staffs NHS Foundation Trust, calls for new laws to make victimisation by colleagues a criminal offence and for attempts to obstruct whistle-blowing to be made illegal also.

But barrister Caspar Glyn QC is concerned that, all too often, disgruntled, under-achieving employees use whistle-blowing legislation as a sword - threatening to report workplace malpractice unless they receive enhanced severance payments. He says employers need protection as well as employees.

Producer: Brian King

An Above the Title production for BBC Radio 4.

Whistleblowers2013091820130921

Clive Anderson and guests ask if the law offers enough protection to whistleblowers.

Clive Anderson's guests call for new laws both to encourage employees to report criminal behaviour and malpractice in their organisations and to protect them if they blow the whistle.

The programme brings together leading lawyers to discuss the developing law relating to whistle-blowing and to consider concerns that the law does not adequately protect employees from unfair dismissal, bullying or blacklisting.

In the wake of the Libor scandal and disturbing revelations about NHS care, does the law offer sufficient safeguards to employees who report a criminal offence, miscarriage of justice, danger to someone's health and safety or damage to the environment?

Cathy James, chief executive of the whistle-blower charity, Public Concern at Work, reveals that three out of four people interviewed say nothing ever happens when they complain about bad practices within the workplace. The programme hears that, despite legislation designed to prevent victimisation of whistle-blowers, most people are still scared to raise their head above the parapet.

Robert Francis QC, who chaired the public inquiry into the Mid Staffs NHS Foundation Trust, calls for new laws to make victimisation by colleagues a criminal offence and for attempts to obstruct whistle-blowing to be made illegal also.

But barrister Caspar Glyn QC is concerned that, all too often, disgruntled, under-achieving employees use whistle-blowing legislation as a sword - threatening to report workplace malpractice unless they receive enhanced severance payments. He says employers need protection as well as employees.

Producer: Brian King

An Above the Title production for BBC Radio 4.

Who's To Blame?2012121220121215

Clive Anderson and guests discuss the legal duty of care to protect people from abuse.

In the first of a new series, Clive Anderson and top legal experts discuss the extent to which groups and individuals have a duty of care to protect the safety and well-being of others.

Revelations about Jimmy Savile and other abuse cases have raised questions about the responsibility of institutions when wrongdoing occurs on their premises or to people in their care. The programme asks if victims have sufficient recourse in law to take legal action against those who have behaved negligently or have failed to protect them from negligence. How exactly does a court decide who has a duty of care and establish whether or not enough effort was made to exercise it?

Guests discuss calls for the Football Association to be held legally responsible for the Hillsborough deaths, the Government's responsibility for the safety of soldiers in Afghanistan and the Catholic Church's responsibility for sexual abuse by priests.

And what is our individual duty of care for the safety of our own family, our neighbours or for anyone in our community? Should we introduce the equivalent of the French 'Good Samaritan' law which makes it illegal not to help at the scene of an accident?

Other subjects to be discussed in the series are concerns that our employment laws are nudging towards a US 'fire at will'culture, the way the law restricts the use of hateful or insulting language and how moves to speed up our legal system may be resulting in injustices.

Producer: Brian King

An Above The Title production for BBC Radio 4.

Who's To Blame?2012121220121215

Clive Anderson and guests discuss the legal duty of care to protect people from abuse.

Clive Anderson and guests discuss the legal duty of care to protect people from abuse.

In the first of a new series, Clive Anderson and top legal experts discuss the extent to which groups and individuals have a duty of care to protect the safety and well-being of others.

Revelations about Jimmy Savile and other abuse cases have raised questions about the responsibility of institutions when wrongdoing occurs on their premises or to people in their care. The programme asks if victims have sufficient recourse in law to take legal action against those who have behaved negligently or have failed to protect them from negligence. How exactly does a court decide who has a duty of care and establish whether or not enough effort was made to exercise it?

Guests discuss calls for the Football Association to be held legally responsible for the Hillsborough deaths, the Government's responsibility for the safety of soldiers in Afghanistan and the Catholic Church's responsibility for sexual abuse by priests.

And what is our individual duty of care for the safety of our own family, our neighbours or for anyone in our community? Should we introduce the equivalent of the French 'Good Samaritan' law which makes it illegal not to help at the scene of an accident?

Other subjects to be discussed in the series are concerns that our employment laws are nudging towards a US 'fire at will'culture, the way the law restricts the use of hateful or insulting language and how moves to speed up our legal system may be resulting in injustices.

Producer: Brian King

An Above The Title production for BBC Radio 4.

In the first of a new series, Clive Anderson and top legal experts discuss the extent to which groups and individuals have a duty of care to protect the safety and well-being of others.

Revelations about Jimmy Savile and other abuse cases have raised questions about the responsibility of institutions when wrongdoing occurs on their premises or to people in their care. The programme asks if victims have sufficient recourse in law to take legal action against those who have behaved negligently or have failed to protect them from negligence. How exactly does a court decide who has a duty of care and establish whether or not enough effort was made to exercise it?

Guests discuss calls for the Football Association to be held legally responsible for the Hillsborough deaths, the Government's responsibility for the safety of soldiers in Afghanistan and the Catholic Church's responsibility for sexual abuse by priests.

And what is our individual duty of care for the safety of our own family, our neighbours or for anyone in our community? Should we introduce the equivalent of the French 'Good Samaritan' law which makes it illegal not to help at the scene of an accident?

Other subjects to be discussed in the series are concerns that our employment laws are nudging towards a US 'fire at will'culture, the way the law restricts the use of hateful or insulting language and how moves to speed up our legal system may be resulting in injustices.

Producer: Brian King

An Above The Title production for BBC Radio 4.

Youth Justice20170920

"Clive Anderson and guests discuss the treatment of young offenders in the courts.

There has been a 64 per cent drop in the number of young people being dealt with in the youth justice system. The reduction reflects an underlying fall in youth crime, but also a sustained commitment by police and the courts to finding other ways of dealing with young offenders to avoid criminalising them. Clive Anderson and guests discuss the need for further reforms.

Barrister Shauneen Lambe, executive director of Just for Kids Law, says the system is still too punitive and does not adequately deal with young people with the most serious problems, including repeat offenders.

Solicitor Greg Stewart who has represented young offenders in court for 25 years, says many of the recent reforms simply "re-arranged the furniture" and believes further wholesale changes are needed, including raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility. At 10 years old in England and Wales, it is among the lowest in the world.

Also taking part are Chief Constable Olivia Pinkney who leads for the National Police Chiefs Council on young people's issues, and Malcolm Richardson, chair of the Magistrates Association.

The programme discusses new sentencing guidelines for young offenders, a damning report on youth custody institutions by the Chief Inspector of Prisons and a new report by David Lammy raising serious concerns about the treatment of black, Asian and minority ethnic young people in the youth justice system.

Clive asks if our system is currently too harsh or too lenient in its approach to young offenders. Do we have the right range of punishments and alternatives to custodial sentences? Do our courts sufficiently recognise recent advances in understanding of the adolescent brain?

Producer: Brian King
A 7digital production for BBC Radio 4.

"

Youth Justice20170920

Clive Anderson and guests discuss the treatment of young offenders in the courts.

There has been a 64 per cent drop in the number of young people being dealt with in the youth justice system. The reduction reflects an underlying fall in youth crime, but also a sustained commitment by police and the courts to finding other ways of dealing with young offenders to avoid criminalising them. Clive Anderson and guests discuss the need for further reforms.

Barrister Shauneen Lambe, executive director of Just for Kids Law, says the system is still too punitive and does not adequately deal with young people with the most serious problems, including repeat offenders.

Solicitor Greg Stewart who has represented young offenders in court for 25 years, says many of the recent reforms simply "re-arranged the furniture" and believes further wholesale changes are needed, including raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility. At 10 years old in England and Wales, it is among the lowest in the world.

Also taking part are Chief Constable Olivia Pinkney who leads for the National Police Chiefs Council on young people's issues, and Malcolm Richardson, chair of the Magistrates Association.

The programme discusses new sentencing guidelines for young offenders, a damning report on youth custody institutions by the Chief Inspector of Prisons and a new report by David Lammy raising serious concerns about the treatment of black, Asian and minority ethnic young people in the youth justice system.

Clive asks if our system is currently too harsh or too lenient in its approach to young offenders. Do we have the right range of punishments and alternatives to custodial sentences? Do our courts sufficiently recognise recent advances in understanding of the adolescent brain?

Producer: Brian King
A 7digital production for BBC Radio 4.

Youth Justice20170920

Clive Anderson and guests discuss the treatment of young offenders in the courts.

There has been a 64 per cent drop in the number of young people being dealt with in the youth justice system. The reduction reflects an underlying fall in youth crime, but also a sustained commitment by police and the courts to finding other ways of dealing with young offenders to avoid criminalising them. Clive Anderson and guests discuss the need for further reforms.

Barrister Shauneen Lambe, executive director of Just for Kids Law, says the system is still too punitive and does not adequately deal with young people with the most serious problems, including repeat offenders.

Solicitor Greg Stewart who has represented young offenders in court for 25 years, says many of the recent reforms simply "re-arranged the furniture" and believes further wholesale changes are needed, including raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility. At 10 years old in England and Wales, it is among the lowest in the world.

Also taking part are Chief Constable Olivia Pinkney who leads for the National Police Chiefs Council on young people's issues, and Malcolm Richardson, chair of the Magistrates Association.

The programme discusses new sentencing guidelines for young offenders, a damning report on youth custody institutions by the Chief Inspector of Prisons and a new report by David Lammy raising serious concerns about the treatment of black, Asian and minority ethnic young people in the youth justice system.

Clive asks if our system is currently too harsh or too lenient in its approach to young offenders. Do we have the right range of punishments and alternatives to custodial sentences? Do our courts sufficiently recognise recent advances in understanding of the adolescent brain?

Producer: Brian King
A 7digital production for BBC Radio 4.

Youth Justice20170920

Clive Anderson and guests discuss the treatment of young offenders in the courts.

There has been a 64 per cent drop in the number of young people being dealt with in the youth justice system. The reduction reflects an underlying fall in youth crime, but also a sustained commitment by police and the courts to finding other ways of dealing with young offenders to avoid criminalising them. Clive Anderson and guests discuss the need for further reforms.

Barrister Shauneen Lambe, executive director of Just for Kids Law, says the system is still too punitive and does not adequately deal with young people with the most serious problems, including repeat offenders.

Solicitor Greg Stewart who has represented young offenders in court for 25 years, says many of the recent reforms simply "re-arranged the furniture" and believes further wholesale changes are needed, including raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility. At 10 years old in England and Wales, it is among the lowest in the world.

Also taking part are Chief Constable Olivia Pinkney who leads for the National Police Chiefs Council on young people's issues, and Malcolm Richardson, chair of the Magistrates Association.

The programme discusses new sentencing guidelines for young offenders, a damning report on youth custody institutions by the Chief Inspector of Prisons and a new report by David Lammy raising serious concerns about the treatment of black, Asian and minority ethnic young people in the youth justice system.

Clive asks if our system is currently too harsh or too lenient in its approach to young offenders. Do we have the right range of punishments and alternatives to custodial sentences? Do our courts sufficiently recognise recent advances in understanding of the adolescent brain?

Producer: Brian King
A 7digital production for BBC Radio 4.

02Above The Law2010041420100417

Programme 2.

Clive Anderson brings together some of the country's top judges and lawyers to discuss the legal issues of the day.

The second programme asks why certain groups of people, in certain situations, appear to be 'above the law' - granted immunity from prosecution or civil action.

MPs facing criminal charges over their expenses, under a legal convention dating back to the seventeenth century, may be able to argue that their behaviour is covered by parliamentary privilege.

This is the privilege which allows MPs and Peers to make slanderous remarks within the Houses of Parliament, without fear of being sued in the civil courts - so why is it being argued that it could be a defence from prosecution for criminal offences?

Diplomatic immunity protects embassy staff from prosecution for any offence from non-payment of parking fines to murder.

Why is this the case, and is the situation open to abuse?

Crown or state immunity, establishes that the sovereign or state cannot commit a legal wrong and is immune from civil suit or criminal prosecution.

But can this immunity be extended to cover national security agents accused of torture on the grounds that they are 'agents of the state' or to protect heads of state accused of war crimes or corruption?

This programme also discusses immunity from prosecution granted to super-grasses and other defendants who provide evidence to the prosecution.

The producer is Brian King, and this is an Above the Title production for BBC Radio 4.

Why do certain groups of people, in certain situations, appear to be 'above the law'?

Lawyers are arguing that the 3 MPs and a Peer facing charges over their expenses claims are protected from being prosecuted in the ordinary criminal courts, because of special parliamentary privilege.

This week, Clive Anderson and a panel of distinguished lawyers discuss the reasons why certain people, including MPs, judges, diplomats, heads of state and even in some circumstances criminals-turned-informants, seem to be above the law".

Why should an MP speaking in the House of Commons be able to slander another person without fear of being sued? Why are diplomats literally allowed to get away with murder?

How and why were these long-standing legal immunities established, and can they still be justified today?

"

02Above The Law2010041420100417

Programme 2.

Clive Anderson brings together some of the country's top judges and lawyers to discuss the legal issues of the day.

The second programme asks why certain groups of people, in certain situations, appear to be 'above the law' - granted immunity from prosecution or civil action.

MPs facing criminal charges over their expenses, under a legal convention dating back to the seventeenth century, may be able to argue that their behaviour is covered by parliamentary privilege.

This is the privilege which allows MPs and Peers to make slanderous remarks within the Houses of Parliament, without fear of being sued in the civil courts - so why is it being argued that it could be a defence from prosecution for criminal offences?

Diplomatic immunity protects embassy staff from prosecution for any offence from non-payment of parking fines to murder.

Why is this the case, and is the situation open to abuse?

Crown or state immunity, establishes that the sovereign or state cannot commit a legal wrong and is immune from civil suit or criminal prosecution.

But can this immunity be extended to cover national security agents accused of torture on the grounds that they are 'agents of the state' or to protect heads of state accused of war crimes or corruption?

This programme also discusses immunity from prosecution granted to super-grasses and other defendants who provide evidence to the prosecution.

The producer is Brian King, and this is an Above the Title production for BBC Radio 4.

Why do certain groups of people, in certain situations, appear to be 'above the law'?

Lawyers are arguing that the 3 MPs and a Peer facing charges over their expenses claims are protected from being prosecuted in the ordinary criminal courts, because of special parliamentary privilege.

This week, Clive Anderson and a panel of distinguished lawyers discuss the reasons why certain people, including MPs, judges, diplomats, heads of state and even in some circumstances criminals-turned-informants, seem to be above the law".

Why should an MP speaking in the House of Commons be able to slander another person without fear of being sued? Why are diplomats literally allowed to get away with murder?

How and why were these long-standing legal immunities established, and can they still be justified today?

"

03Libel2010042120100424

In this week's edition of Unreliable Evidence, Clive Anderson and guests discuss fears that Britain's libel laws are being used to stifle free speech.

There is particular concern about 'libel tourism' - that wealthy overseas litigants with little connection to this country are using the British courts to sue people they claim have defamed them.

It's been suggested that in relation to libel, Britain has become the legal equivalent of an offshore tax haven.

It's claimed that our libel laws are exerting a 'chilling effect' on doctors, scientists and campaigners; preventing them from speaking out against powerful organisations, for fear of being sued.

Justice Secretary, Jack Straw, has announced plans for wide-reaching reforms of Britain's libel laws.

His proposals, building on a study by a working group of lawyers, academics and newspaper editors, are aimed at discouraging overseas claimants from launching cases in UK courts and the introduction of a 'public interest' defence to protect work done by investigative journalists, scientists and NGOs to inform the public.

The producer is Brian King, and this is an Above the Title production for BBC Radio 4.

Clive Anderson and guests discuss concerns that Britain's libel laws are being abused.

Clive Anderson and guests discuss fears that Britain's libel laws are being used to stifle free speech.

03Libel2010042120100424

In this week's edition of Unreliable Evidence, Clive Anderson and guests discuss fears that Britain's libel laws are being used to stifle free speech.

There is particular concern about 'libel tourism' - that wealthy overseas litigants with little connection to this country are using the British courts to sue people they claim have defamed them.

It's been suggested that in relation to libel, Britain has become the legal equivalent of an offshore tax haven.

It's claimed that our libel laws are exerting a 'chilling effect' on doctors, scientists and campaigners; preventing them from speaking out against powerful organisations, for fear of being sued.

Justice Secretary, Jack Straw, has announced plans for wide-reaching reforms of Britain's libel laws.

His proposals, building on a study by a working group of lawyers, academics and newspaper editors, are aimed at discouraging overseas claimants from launching cases in UK courts and the introduction of a 'public interest' defence to protect work done by investigative journalists, scientists and NGOs to inform the public.

The producer is Brian King, and this is an Above the Title production for BBC Radio 4.

Clive Anderson and guests discuss concerns that Britain's libel laws are being abused.

Clive Anderson and guests discuss fears that Britain's libel laws are being used to stifle free speech.

04Jury Trial2010042820100501

The British tradition of trial by jury appears to be under threat.

Amendments to the Criminal Justice Act have allowed the first criminal trial to take place without a jury for over 400 years.

A survey recently revealed huge variations in jurors' perceptions of what is illegal, and a senior judge is recommending the removal of juries from libel trials.

Sir Louis Blom-Cooper QC has decribed juries as a recipe for incompetence and bias".

But a major research study, conducted for the Ministry of Justice by Prof Cheryl Thomas, concluded that juries were fair, efficient and effective.

Are juries here to stay, or might they eventually be replaced by something else? And what might that be?

Clive Anderson brings together Prof Thomas, Sir Louis Blom Cooper, Chris Sallon QC and a Crown Court judge to discuss the options.

The producer is Brian King, and this is an Above the Title production for BBC Radio 4.

Clive Anderson examines threats to the future of jury trials.

The British tradition of trial by jury is under threat.

And a senior judge is recommending the removal of juries from libel trials.

In the last in the current series of Unreliable Evidence, Clive Anderson and guests discuss the future of the jury.

Long-standing critic of the jury system, Sir Louis Blom-Cooper argues that the failure of juries to give reasons for their verdicts, makes them unaccountable.

He argues that defendants should at least be given the option to be tried by a judge alone.

Crown Court Judge Simon Tonking, and criminal barrister Chris Sallon QC, both support the jury system, though Judge Tonking admits he doesn't always agree with the verdicts returned by juries.

Prof Cheryl Thomas' report for the Ministry of Justice concluded that juries are fair, efficient and effective, but she concedes that there is room for improvement.

An Above the Title production for BBC Radio 4

Producers: Anne Tyerman Brian King.

Clive Anderson and some of the country's top legal minds discuss the future of jury trials"

04Jury Trial2010042820100501

The British tradition of trial by jury appears to be under threat.

Amendments to the Criminal Justice Act have allowed the first criminal trial to take place without a jury for over 400 years.

A survey recently revealed huge variations in jurors' perceptions of what is illegal, and a senior judge is recommending the removal of juries from libel trials.

Sir Louis Blom-Cooper QC has decribed juries as a recipe for incompetence and bias".

But a major research study, conducted for the Ministry of Justice by Prof Cheryl Thomas, concluded that juries were fair, efficient and effective.

Are juries here to stay, or might they eventually be replaced by something else? And what might that be?

Clive Anderson brings together Prof Thomas, Sir Louis Blom Cooper, Chris Sallon QC and a Crown Court judge to discuss the options.

The producer is Brian King, and this is an Above the Title production for BBC Radio 4.

Clive Anderson examines threats to the future of jury trials.

The British tradition of trial by jury is under threat.

And a senior judge is recommending the removal of juries from libel trials.

In the last in the current series of Unreliable Evidence, Clive Anderson and guests discuss the future of the jury.

Long-standing critic of the jury system, Sir Louis Blom-Cooper argues that the failure of juries to give reasons for their verdicts, makes them unaccountable.

He argues that defendants should at least be given the option to be tried by a judge alone.

Crown Court Judge Simon Tonking, and criminal barrister Chris Sallon QC, both support the jury system, though Judge Tonking admits he doesn't always agree with the verdicts returned by juries.

Prof Cheryl Thomas' report for the Ministry of Justice concluded that juries are fair, efficient and effective, but she concedes that there is room for improvement.

An Above the Title production for BBC Radio 4

Producers: Anne Tyerman Brian King.

Clive Anderson and some of the country's top legal minds discuss the future of jury trials"

Amendments to the Criminal Justice Act have allowed the first criminal trial to take place without a jury for over 400 years. And a senior judge is recommending the removal of juries from libel trials.

Long-standing critic of the jury system, Sir Louis Blom-Cooper argues that the failure of juries to give reasons for their verdicts, makes them unaccountable. He argues that defendants should at least be given the option to be tried by a judge alone.

Crown Court Judge Simon Tonking, and criminal barrister Chris Sallon QC, both support the jury system, though Judge Tonking admits he doesn't always agree with the verdicts returned by juries. Prof Cheryl Thomas' report for the Ministry of Justice concluded that juries are fair, efficient and effective, but she concedes that there is room for improvement.

198B0119980623

In the first of six programmes, barrister Clive Anderson and expert guests cut through the legal jargon to address the issues that affect anyone who uses the law.

1: The jury system.

198B0119980623

In the first of six programmes, barrister Clive Anderson and expert guests cut through the legal jargon to address the issues that affect anyone who uses the law.

1: The jury system.

198B0219980630

With the aid of expert guests, Clive Anderson - former barrister and grand inquisitor of the stars - cuts through the legal jargon to get to the heart of an issue which affects anyone who uses our cherished legal system.

198B0219980630

With the aid of expert guests, Clive Anderson - former barrister and grand inquisitor of the stars - cuts through the legal jargon to get to the heart of an issue which affects anyone who uses our cherished legal system.

198B0319980707
198B0319980707
198B0419980714
198B0419980714
198B0519980721
198B0519980721
198B0619980728
198B0619980728
204B01Judging The Truth20040406

This highly-acclaimed programme returns with Clive Anderson and eminent guests discussing key legal issues.

This week they examine one of the court's most important, and difficult, tasks.

How do judges and juries decide whether or not someone is telling the truth? Are judges more able in this than their lay counterparts? If so, why? If not, do they nonetheless think that they are? And can this skill be learned? Indeed, does the 'armchair psychology' operated by legal fact-finders bear any resemblance to actual contemporary psychological research?

204B01Judging The Truth20040406

This highly-acclaimed programme returns with Clive Anderson and eminent guests discussing key legal issues.

This week they examine one of the court's most important, and difficult, tasks.

How do judges and juries decide whether or not someone is telling the truth? Are judges more able in this than their lay counterparts? If so, why? If not, do they nonetheless think that they are? And can this skill be learned? Indeed, does the 'armchair psychology' operated by legal fact-finders bear any resemblance to actual contemporary psychological research?

204B02Royal Prerogative:20040413

Clive Anderson is joined by four eminent members of the legal profession to discuss Royal Prerogative.

204B02Royal Prerogative:20040413

Clive Anderson is joined by four eminent members of the legal profession to discuss Royal Prerogative.

204B03Mental Health And The Law20040420

The law treats those with mental disabilities quite differently from those who are physically disabled.

Are these discrepancies just? To what extent does, or should, the law take it upon itself to make decisions for those whom it deems unable to do so for themselves?

Presented by Clive Anderson

204B03Mental Health And The Law20040420

The law treats those with mental disabilities quite differently from those who are physically disabled.

Are these discrepancies just? To what extent does, or should, the law take it upon itself to make decisions for those whom it deems unable to do so for themselves?

Presented by Clive Anderson

204B04Judicial Review20040427

is arguably the most important mechanism the citizen has to regulate the conduct of the State.

But from where does this power derive, and can it be removed? What happens when the courts find that a Minister has exceeded her powers; to whom is the judge himself accountable, and why has Judicial Review become the growth industry of the legal profession? Clive Anderson investigates.

204B04Judicial Review20040427

is arguably the most important mechanism the citizen has to regulate the conduct of the State.

But from where does this power derive, and can it be removed? What happens when the courts find that a Minister has exceeded her powers; to whom is the judge himself accountable, and why has Judicial Review become the growth industry of the legal profession? Clive Anderson investigates.

204B05Diplomatic And State Immunity20040504

Clive Anderson is joined by four eminent members of the legal profession to discuss diplomatic and state immunity.

204B05Diplomatic And State Immunity20040504

Clive Anderson is joined by four eminent members of the legal profession to discuss diplomatic and state immunity.

204B06The Legacy Of Lord Denning20040511

Clive Anderson and a panel of guests examine the legacy of one of the most controversial judges of the 20th Century.

204B06The Legacy Of Lord Denning20040511

Clive Anderson and a panel of guests examine the legacy of one of the most controversial judges of the 20th Century.

204B07Sports And The Law20040518

Clive Anderson and a panel of four eminent legal guests discuss sport and the law.

204B07Sports And The Law20040518

Clive Anderson and a panel of four eminent legal guests discuss sport and the law.

204B08Common Law V Civil Law20040525

Clive Anderson presents the series looking at key legal issues.

Today four eminent legal guests will be discussing Common Law v Civil Law.

204B08Common Law V Civil Law20040525

Clive Anderson presents the series looking at key legal issues.

Today four eminent legal guests will be discussing Common Law v Civil Law.

206B01Inadmissible Evidence20060411

>Should a murder trial jury hear evidence of a defendant's violent or abusive past? Would knowing about a defendant's criminal record make a jury more likely to convict? Bruce Houlder QC, Professor Sally Lloyd-Bostock, Chief Superintendent Ian Johnston and Lord Justice Alan Moses discuss the issue of inadmissible evidence.

206B01Inadmissible Evidence20060411

>Should a murder trial jury hear evidence of a defendant's violent or abusive past? Would knowing about a defendant's criminal record make a jury more likely to convict? Bruce Houlder QC, Professor Sally Lloyd-Bostock, Chief Superintendent Ian Johnston and Lord Justice Alan Moses discuss the issue of inadmissible evidence.

206B02International Law20060418

Since the Second World War, Britain and the US have been at the forefront of developing international law, governing such disparate areas as war, trade, the environment and human rights.

But how much have these global agreements been damaged by events such as Guantanamo Bay and the Iraq War? Leading international lawyer Philippe Sands and former US State Department legal adviser William H Taft are among the guests debating the future of international law.

206B02International Law20060418

Since the Second World War, Britain and the US have been at the forefront of developing international law, governing such disparate areas as war, trade, the environment and human rights.

But how much have these global agreements been damaged by events such as Guantanamo Bay and the Iraq War? Leading international lawyer Philippe Sands and former US State Department legal adviser William H Taft are among the guests debating the future of international law.

206B03Convicting Sex Offenders20060425

The conviction rate of defendants charged with rape or other sexual offences is at an all time low.

Research suggests ignorance and prejudice are still widespread among judges, juries and prosecutors.

The Director of Public Prosecutions, Ken Macdonald, and other leading experts, discuss the need for changes in the legal system to reduce the number of acquittals.

206B03Convicting Sex Offenders20060425

The conviction rate of defendants charged with rape or other sexual offences is at an all time low.

Research suggests ignorance and prejudice are still widespread among judges, juries and prosecutors.

The Director of Public Prosecutions, Ken Macdonald, and other leading experts, discuss the need for changes in the legal system to reduce the number of acquittals.

206B04Human Rights, Five Years On20060502

The Human Rights Act has been criticised for everything from fuelling a compensation culture to protecting the right of serial murderers to have access to pornography.

Five years on from its incorporation into English law, has it advanced the rights of citizens, or have important social rights been sidelined by the Act?

A panel of legal experts considers the current state of human rights.

206B04Human Rights, Five Years On20060502

The Human Rights Act has been criticised for everything from fuelling a compensation culture to protecting the right of serial murderers to have access to pornography.

Five years on from its incorporation into English law, has it advanced the rights of citizens, or have important social rights been sidelined by the Act?

A panel of legal experts considers the current state of human rights.

206B05A Supreme Court For The Uk20060509

The Law Lords are to be removed from their historic home in the House of Lords and placed in a new highest court in the land - the Supreme Court.

But could (or should) a new court mean new powers? As our unwritten constitution evolves and senior judges are increasingly required to decide matters of policy, might they eventually challenge the very sovereignty of Parliament? Or is it all just an expensive cosmetic exercise?

206B05A Supreme Court For The Uk20060509

The Law Lords are to be removed from their historic home in the House of Lords and placed in a new highest court in the land - the Supreme Court.

But could (or should) a new court mean new powers? As our unwritten constitution evolves and senior judges are increasingly required to decide matters of policy, might they eventually challenge the very sovereignty of Parliament? Or is it all just an expensive cosmetic exercise?

206B06A Criminal Code20060516

Criminal law in Britain is based on a huge jumble of statutory and common law, some of which goes back to the 17th Century.

Many criticise it as being incoherent and inconsistent.

The law relating to murder, for example, is seen as confusing and unfair, needing to be adapted on a case by case basis.

Should we not, like every other nation in Europe, have a clear, authoritative, modern written statement of our criminal law - a criminal code? Or would that now create more problems than it solves?

206B06A Criminal Code20060516

Criminal law in Britain is based on a huge jumble of statutory and common law, some of which goes back to the 17th Century.

Many criticise it as being incoherent and inconsistent.

The law relating to murder, for example, is seen as confusing and unfair, needing to be adapted on a case by case basis.

Should we not, like every other nation in Europe, have a clear, authoritative, modern written statement of our criminal law - a criminal code? Or would that now create more problems than it solves?

206B07Divorce In The 21st Century20060523

Do our divorce laws fail to reflect the realities of modern life? Do they create a lottery resulting in injustice, suffering and damage to parents and children alike?

A senior judge and other legal experts discuss equality in the divorce courts, pre-nuptial agreements and the legal pitfalls of co-habitation.

With Clive Anderson

206B07Divorce In The 21st Century20060523

Do our divorce laws fail to reflect the realities of modern life? Do they create a lottery resulting in injustice, suffering and damage to parents and children alike?

A senior judge and other legal experts discuss equality in the divorce courts, pre-nuptial agreements and the legal pitfalls of co-habitation.

With Clive Anderson

206B08Foreign Law20060530

English common law has evolved over some 350 years, with judges basing their decisions on those made by predecessors.

But while we have successfully exported our legal system around the world, our own courts have been reluctant to take account of decisions made by foreign judges.

Is our law simply the best in the world, or might we improve upon our ancient legal doctrines by looking beyond our borders? Does our insularity work against the interests of ordinary litigants or is it just the best way of ensuring justice?

206B08Foreign Law20060530

English common law has evolved over some 350 years, with judges basing their decisions on those made by predecessors.

But while we have successfully exported our legal system around the world, our own courts have been reluctant to take account of decisions made by foreign judges.

Is our law simply the best in the world, or might we improve upon our ancient legal doctrines by looking beyond our borders? Does our insularity work against the interests of ordinary litigants or is it just the best way of ensuring justice?

207B01Sentencing2007051620070519

An increase in gun and knife crime has brought inevitable calls for tougher sentences to deter violent criminals.

But there is little evidence of any real correlation between the severity of sentencing and the incidence of crime.

A panel of senior judges, lawyers and academics debate the options open to the courts.

207B01Sentencing2007051620070519

An increase in gun and knife crime has brought inevitable calls for tougher sentences to deter violent criminals.

But there is little evidence of any real correlation between the severity of sentencing and the incidence of crime.

A panel of senior judges, lawyers and academics debate the options open to the courts.

207B02Internet Law2007052320070526

The internet has enriched our lives in many ways, but it has also generated many ways to break the law.

How well does our legal system protect us from the dangers of being libelled, defrauded, having our intellectual property stolen or being exposed to pornography or violent images?

A panel of senior judges, barristers and academics identify the shortcomings of the law and discuss possible solutions.

207B02Internet Law2007052320070526

The internet has enriched our lives in many ways, but it has also generated many ways to break the law.

How well does our legal system protect us from the dangers of being libelled, defrauded, having our intellectual property stolen or being exposed to pornography or violent images?

A panel of senior judges, barristers and academics identify the shortcomings of the law and discuss possible solutions.

207B03The Attorney General2007053020070602

Is the post of Attorney General compatible with that of a senior politician? Lord Goldsmith's advice to the government has sometimes attracted considerable criticism, even from within his own party.

Should the job be done by someone entirely independent of politics, and all advice be made public? Lord Goldsmith himself joins a panel of critics and supporters to discuss the arguments.

207B03The Attorney General2007053020070602

Is the post of Attorney General compatible with that of a senior politician? Lord Goldsmith's advice to the government has sometimes attracted considerable criticism, even from within his own party.

Should the job be done by someone entirely independent of politics, and all advice be made public? Lord Goldsmith himself joins a panel of critics and supporters to discuss the arguments.

207B04 LASTAppointing The Judges2007060620070609

A new Judicial Appointments Commission was set up a year ago to choose the next generation of judges in England and Wales.This independent body is looking for candidates from outside the traditional white middle-class gene pool, but is committed to appointing purely on merit.

Why do we need a new selection process and is anything changing?

207B04 LASTAppointing The Judges2007060620070609

A new Judicial Appointments Commission was set up a year ago to choose the next generation of judges in England and Wales.This independent body is looking for candidates from outside the traditional white middle-class gene pool, but is committed to appointing purely on merit.

Why do we need a new selection process and is anything changing?

207D01Asylum Seekers2007112820071201

The way we treat asylum seekers is seen as a measure of our commitment to defending victims of violence and persecution wherever it occurs.

Do our courts offer enough protection to those fleeing oppression? Senior lawyers and politicians discuss allegations that Britain often fails to provide sanctuary to those who need it most.

207D01Asylum Seekers2007112820071201

The way we treat asylum seekers is seen as a measure of our commitment to defending victims of violence and persecution wherever it occurs.

Do our courts offer enough protection to those fleeing oppression? Senior lawyers and politicians discuss allegations that Britain often fails to provide sanctuary to those who need it most.

207D02Legal Aid2007120520071208

Cutbacks in the Government's legal aid budget have led to warnings that many vulnerable people are not able to get legal advice or proper representation and that this is resulting in injustices.

Key figures in the debate discuss demands for greater funding and the fairer distribution of the existing budget.

207D02Legal Aid2007120520071208

Cutbacks in the Government's legal aid budget have led to warnings that many vulnerable people are not able to get legal advice or proper representation and that this is resulting in injustices.

Key figures in the debate discuss demands for greater funding and the fairer distribution of the existing budget.

207D032007121220071215

There is concern that it is easy for British citizens to be dragged into foreign courts, yet almost impossible to extradite people from other countries to face trial over here.

Lawyers involved in high-profile cases of Britons accused of committing crimes in the US discuss the issue.

207D032007121220071215

There is concern that it is easy for British citizens to be dragged into foreign courts, yet almost impossible to extradite people from other countries to face trial over here.

Lawyers involved in high-profile cases of Britons accused of committing crimes in the US discuss the issue.

207D04 LASTYouth Justice2007121920071222

Record numbers of young people are currently being held in custody, with children as young as ten being brought to court for offences as trivial as stealing half a sausage roll or a marble.

Police stand accused of targeting young offenders in order to enhance their arrest figures.

Key figures involved discuss concerns that the system is in crisis and in need of a complete overhaul.

207D04 LASTYouth Justice2007121920071222

Record numbers of young people are currently being held in custody, with children as young as ten being brought to court for offences as trivial as stealing half a sausage roll or a marble.

Police stand accused of targeting young offenders in order to enhance their arrest figures.

Key figures involved discuss concerns that the system is in crisis and in need of a complete overhaul.

208B01The Laws Of War2008043020080503

Our armed forces no longer have exclusive power to try and punish their own.

In a series of high-profile cases over recent years, troops in action in Afghanistan and Iraq have had their actions scrutinised in ordinary British civil courts.

What legal standards should be applied to troops in the line of fire?

208B01The Laws Of War2008043020080503

Our armed forces no longer have exclusive power to try and punish their own.

In a series of high-profile cases over recent years, troops in action in Afghanistan and Iraq have had their actions scrutinised in ordinary British civil courts.

What legal standards should be applied to troops in the line of fire?

208B02Litigants In Person2008050720080510

The decision by Heather Mills to represent herself during her recent divorce from Sir Paul Mccartney drew attention to a growing problem in the courts system.

A panel of senior judges, a leading QC and Dave Morris, who represented himself in the McLibel case against McDonald's, discuss the advantages and disadvantages of going solo in the courtroom.

208B02Litigants In Person2008050720080510

The decision by Heather Mills to represent herself during her recent divorce from Sir Paul Mccartney drew attention to a growing problem in the courts system.

A panel of senior judges, a leading QC and Dave Morris, who represented himself in the McLibel case against McDonald's, discuss the advantages and disadvantages of going solo in the courtroom.

208B03Plea Bargaining20080514

is ingrained in the US legal system but occurs only informally in our courts.

What would we gain or lose by adopting a formal system over here? Should it be extended beyond fraud cases or might it lead to innocent people pleading guilty to avoid the risk of lengthy sentences at the end of a trial? Senior lawyers from both sides of the Atlantic discuss the issues.

208B03Plea Bargaining20080514

is ingrained in the US legal system but occurs only informally in our courts.

What would we gain or lose by adopting a formal system over here? Should it be extended beyond fraud cases or might it lead to innocent people pleading guilty to avoid the risk of lengthy sentences at the end of a trial? Senior lawyers from both sides of the Atlantic discuss the issues.

208B04 LASTBail2008052120080524

Almost one in five murder suspects in Britain last year were alleged to have committed the offence while on bail.

Similar statistics have emerged for a whole range of serious crimes.

Should the courts tighten up on granting bail in order to protect the public or would this compromise a defendant's right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty?

208B04 LASTBail2008052120080524

Almost one in five murder suspects in Britain last year were alleged to have committed the offence while on bail.

Similar statistics have emerged for a whole range of serious crimes.

Should the courts tighten up on granting bail in order to protect the public or would this compromise a defendant's right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty?

210D01Lord Bingham20101222

In the first of a new series of Unreliable Evidence, a leading member of the former Labour Government reveals how his party's post 9/11 anti-terrorism policies were 'morally undermined' by one of the greatest judges since the Second World War.

Lord Bingham, who died earlier this year, had ruled that detention of foreign terror suspects without charge breached their human rights.

And after retiring in 2008, the former senior Law Lord argued that Britain's invasion of Iraq in 2003 had contravened international law.

Former Labour Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer, joins Supreme Court Justices Lord Hope and Lady Hale, and legal academic Prof Philippe Sands QC to discuss Lord Bingham's impact on public life.

In a remarkably frank contribution, Lord Falconer pays tribute to Lord Bingham's brilliance but reveals how his judgments, particularly over the detention of terrorist suspects in Belmarsh, 'morally undermined' the Government and forced it to adopt less tough measures.

Lord Falconer also admits that he had been troubled by Lord Bingham's condemnation of the Government's decision to go to war against Iraq.

Producer: Brian King

An Above The Title production for BBC Radio 4.

Clive Anderson's guests pay tribute to the late Lord Bingham.

210D01Lord Bingham20101222

In the first of a new series of Unreliable Evidence, a leading member of the former Labour Government reveals how his party's post 9/11 anti-terrorism policies were 'morally undermined' by one of the greatest judges since the Second World War.

Lord Bingham, who died earlier this year, had ruled that detention of foreign terror suspects without charge breached their human rights.

And after retiring in 2008, the former senior Law Lord argued that Britain's invasion of Iraq in 2003 had contravened international law.

Former Labour Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer, joins Supreme Court Justices Lord Hope and Lady Hale, and legal academic Prof Philippe Sands QC to discuss Lord Bingham's impact on public life.

In a remarkably frank contribution, Lord Falconer pays tribute to Lord Bingham's brilliance but reveals how his judgments, particularly over the detention of terrorist suspects in Belmarsh, 'morally undermined' the Government and forced it to adopt less tough measures.

Lord Falconer also admits that he had been troubled by Lord Bingham's condemnation of the Government's decision to go to war against Iraq.

Producer: Brian King

An Above The Title production for BBC Radio 4.

Clive Anderson's guests pay tribute to the late Lord Bingham.

210D02Legal Aid2010122920110101

Clive Anderson and some of the country's top lawyers and judges discuss legal issues of the day.

The second programme in the series explores the state of our legal aid system and examines how our access to justice could be affected by proposed Government cuts.

Guests include Justice Minister, Jonathan Djanogly, who is responsible for the Government's legal aid policy, and the Bar Council chairman, Nicholas Green QC, who is a major critic of the cuts.

Widespread concern has been expressed about plans to cut nearly a third of the total legal aid budget.

It will mean that civil legal aid would only be routinely available in cases where life or liberty is at stake, or where there is a risk of serious physical harm or loss of home.

Funding for a wide range of disputes, including some divorce cases and clinical negligence, is to be axed.

The programme examines Justice Secretary, Kenneth Clarke's assertion that there is a "compelling case for going back to first principles in reforming legal aid".

Will the cuts reduce access to justice, closing the law to all but those with money?

Producer: Brian King

An Above The Title production for BBC Radio 4.

Clive Anderson and guests discuss proposed Government cuts in the legal aid budget.

In this week's edition of Unreliable Evidence, Clive Anderson and a panel of top lawyers discuss concerns that proposed Government cuts to the legal aid budget will deny access to justice for the poor and weak in society.

The Ministry of Justice proposals target the civil and family law budget and will severely restrict legal aid available for divorce, welfare, employment, immigration, clinical negligence and personal injury cases.

Chair of the Bar Council, Nicholas Green QC warns that the cuts, which include a 10 per cent reduction in lawyers' fees, will create 'justice desserts' as barristers and solicitors increasingly opt out of legal aid work.

210D02Legal Aid2010122920110101

Clive Anderson and some of the country's top lawyers and judges discuss legal issues of the day.

The second programme in the series explores the state of our legal aid system and examines how our access to justice could be affected by proposed Government cuts.

Guests include Justice Minister, Jonathan Djanogly, who is responsible for the Government's legal aid policy, and the Bar Council chairman, Nicholas Green QC, who is a major critic of the cuts.

Widespread concern has been expressed about plans to cut nearly a third of the total legal aid budget.

It will mean that civil legal aid would only be routinely available in cases where life or liberty is at stake, or where there is a risk of serious physical harm or loss of home.

Funding for a wide range of disputes, including some divorce cases and clinical negligence, is to be axed.

The programme examines Justice Secretary, Kenneth Clarke's assertion that there is a "compelling case for going back to first principles in reforming legal aid".

Will the cuts reduce access to justice, closing the law to all but those with money?

Producer: Brian King

An Above The Title production for BBC Radio 4.

Clive Anderson and guests discuss proposed Government cuts in the legal aid budget.

In this week's edition of Unreliable Evidence, Clive Anderson and a panel of top lawyers discuss concerns that proposed Government cuts to the legal aid budget will deny access to justice for the poor and weak in society.

The Ministry of Justice proposals target the civil and family law budget and will severely restrict legal aid available for divorce, welfare, employment, immigration, clinical negligence and personal injury cases.

Chair of the Bar Council, Nicholas Green QC warns that the cuts, which include a 10 per cent reduction in lawyers' fees, will create 'justice desserts' as barristers and solicitors increasingly opt out of legal aid work.

210D03Trade Unions2011010520110108

With strikes apparently back in fashion, Unreliable Evidence explores the law relating to trades unions and industrial action.

Wildcat strikes and secondary picketing are now illegal, and new legislation imposes complex rules on how and when strikes can be called.

Clive Anderson and guests, including a judge and the assistant general secretary of one of Britain's largest unions, discuss why both employers and trades unions are now, increasingly, fighting each other in the courts.

Also taking part are the senior barristers who have represented either side in the ongoing British Airways cabin staff dispute.

Alleged irregularities in the strike balloting process have already resulted in a series of court hearings, injunctions and high court appeals.

Both the TUC and the CBI are calling for reform of trades union law, but whom does the law currently favour - the bosses or the workers?

Producer: Brian King

An Above The Title production for BBC Radio 4.

Clive Anderson and some of the country's top lawyers discuss the legal issues of the day.

210D03Trade Unions2011010520110108

With strikes apparently back in fashion, Unreliable Evidence explores the law relating to trades unions and industrial action.

Wildcat strikes and secondary picketing are now illegal, and new legislation imposes complex rules on how and when strikes can be called.

Clive Anderson and guests, including a judge and the assistant general secretary of one of Britain's largest unions, discuss why both employers and trades unions are now, increasingly, fighting each other in the courts.

Also taking part are the senior barristers who have represented either side in the ongoing British Airways cabin staff dispute.

Alleged irregularities in the strike balloting process have already resulted in a series of court hearings, injunctions and high court appeals.

Both the TUC and the CBI are calling for reform of trades union law, but whom does the law currently favour - the bosses or the workers?

Producer: Brian King

An Above The Title production for BBC Radio 4.

Clive Anderson and some of the country's top lawyers discuss the legal issues of the day.

210D04Law Of The Sea2011011220110115

Clive Anderson and some of the country's top legal minds discuss the law of the sea, examining the problems of trying to achieve justice over three-quarters of the earth's surface in the face of competing national interests.

Are the high seas a legal wild west, or can national and international law be brought together to address such complex issues as piracy, oil spills, fishing quotas and Arctic seabed mining rights?

And even if adequate law exists, who is responsible for seeing that it is enforced?

Guests include Britain's former judge at the International Tribunal of the Law of the Sea, David Anderson, and legal experts on piracy and environmental law.

Producer: Brian King

An Above The Title production for BBC Radio 4.

Clive Anderson and some of the country's top lawyers discuss the legal issues of the day.

210D04Law Of The Sea2011011220110115

Clive Anderson and some of the country's top legal minds discuss the law of the sea, examining the problems of trying to achieve justice over three-quarters of the earth's surface in the face of competing national interests.

Are the high seas a legal wild west, or can national and international law be brought together to address such complex issues as piracy, oil spills, fishing quotas and Arctic seabed mining rights?

And even if adequate law exists, who is responsible for seeing that it is enforced?

Guests include Britain's former judge at the International Tribunal of the Law of the Sea, David Anderson, and legal experts on piracy and environmental law.

Producer: Brian King

An Above The Title production for BBC Radio 4.

Clive Anderson and some of the country's top lawyers discuss the legal issues of the day.

211D01The Law And Government Spending Cuts2011101920111022

Clive Anderson and some of the country's top lawyers and judges discuss legal issues of the day.

The first programme in the new series looks at how the courts are increasingly being used to try to prevent government and local authorities from implementing spending cuts.

A large number of legal actions have already been launched challenging proposed cuts in such things as disability benefits, libraries, advice centres, national parks and school building.

Are such cases likely to be successful, or will they simply delay the implementation of the cuts or force reductions in other services? And are the courts being drawn into the political arena, effectively threatening the operation of government and sovereignty of parliament?

Claimant lawyers and those acting for government and local authorities discuss the issues.

Producer: Brian King

An Above The Title production for BBC Radio 4.

Clive Anderson and guests discuss the major legal issues of the day.

In the first of a new series, Clive Anderson and guests discuss how the courts are increasingly being used to try to prevent government and local authorities from implementing spending cuts.

Clive is joined by former Justice Secretary Lord Falconer, human rights lawyer, Hugh Southey QC, former appeal court Judge, Sir Stephen Sedley and solicitor Louise Whitfield, who specialises in representing clients fighting spending cuts.

They discuss how human rights and equalities law can be used to stop government or local authorities from cutting back on such things as disability benefits, libraries, advice centres, national parks and school building.

While acknowledging that the courts have a legitimate role in ensuring that public bodies fulfil their legal obligations, he admits that he and his government colleagues were often more than a little peeved at being prevented from doing the things they wanted to do.

But how likely is it that challenges to spending cuts will be successful? Will such legal action simply delay the implementation of the cuts or force reductions in other services? And are the courts being drawn into the political arena, effectively threatening the sovereignty of parliament?

211D01The Law And Government Spending Cuts2011101920111022

Clive Anderson and some of the country's top lawyers and judges discuss legal issues of the day.

The first programme in the new series looks at how the courts are increasingly being used to try to prevent government and local authorities from implementing spending cuts.

A large number of legal actions have already been launched challenging proposed cuts in such things as disability benefits, libraries, advice centres, national parks and school building.

Are such cases likely to be successful, or will they simply delay the implementation of the cuts or force reductions in other services? And are the courts being drawn into the political arena, effectively threatening the operation of government and sovereignty of parliament?

Claimant lawyers and those acting for government and local authorities discuss the issues.

Producer: Brian King

An Above The Title production for BBC Radio 4.

Clive Anderson and guests discuss the major legal issues of the day.

In the first of a new series, Clive Anderson and guests discuss how the courts are increasingly being used to try to prevent government and local authorities from implementing spending cuts.

Clive is joined by former Justice Secretary Lord Falconer, human rights lawyer, Hugh Southey QC, former appeal court Judge, Sir Stephen Sedley and solicitor Louise Whitfield, who specialises in representing clients fighting spending cuts.

They discuss how human rights and equalities law can be used to stop government or local authorities from cutting back on such things as disability benefits, libraries, advice centres, national parks and school building.

While acknowledging that the courts have a legitimate role in ensuring that public bodies fulfil their legal obligations, he admits that he and his government colleagues were often more than a little peeved at being prevented from doing the things they wanted to do.

But how likely is it that challenges to spending cuts will be successful? Will such legal action simply delay the implementation of the cuts or force reductions in other services? And are the courts being drawn into the political arena, effectively threatening the sovereignty of parliament?

211D02Reporting The Law2011102620111029

Clive Anderson and some of the country's top lawyers and judges discuss legal issues of the day.

The second programme in the series explores growing concerns that press coverage of the judicial process is out of control, resulting in trial by media and a threat to the defendant's right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

A central tenet of the British legal system is that justice should not just be done, it should be seen to be done, but does the media coverage of some high profile cases, such as that which followed the arrest of a suspect in the Joanna Yeats murder inquiry, overstep the mark?

The Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer, has warned that the Contempt of Court Act has had 'little or no effect' on reporting of cases.

Prejudicial press reporting has led to the collapse of trials, and the Attorney General, Dominic Grieve, has indicated that he may introduce tougher laws to control press reporting.

Despite numerous arrests, there continues to be blanket media coverage of the News of the World phone hacking story.

What effect will this have on any subsequent court proceedings?

Producer: Brian King

An Above The Title production for BBC Radio 4.

How press coverage of court cases can result in trial by media.

Guests include the Attorney General, Dominic Grieve, who is responsible for initiating contempt of court proceedings against the media and has successfully prosecuted several national newspapers this year.

Challenged to take action more frequently, he says he is reluctant to act in a way which would inhibit freedom of speech, but says that if newspapers flagrantly disregard the law he would be forced to consider introducing tougher laws.

The other guests are Old Bailey judge Peter Rook, leading barrister Desmond Browne QC and Gill Phillips, a senior lawyer in the legal department of the Guardian.

211D02Reporting The Law2011102620111029

Clive Anderson and some of the country's top lawyers and judges discuss legal issues of the day.

The second programme in the series explores growing concerns that press coverage of the judicial process is out of control, resulting in trial by media and a threat to the defendant's right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

A central tenet of the British legal system is that justice should not just be done, it should be seen to be done, but does the media coverage of some high profile cases, such as that which followed the arrest of a suspect in the Joanna Yeats murder inquiry, overstep the mark?

The Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer, has warned that the Contempt of Court Act has had 'little or no effect' on reporting of cases.

Prejudicial press reporting has led to the collapse of trials, and the Attorney General, Dominic Grieve, has indicated that he may introduce tougher laws to control press reporting.

Despite numerous arrests, there continues to be blanket media coverage of the News of the World phone hacking story.

What effect will this have on any subsequent court proceedings?

Producer: Brian King

An Above The Title production for BBC Radio 4.

How press coverage of court cases can result in trial by media.

Guests include the Attorney General, Dominic Grieve, who is responsible for initiating contempt of court proceedings against the media and has successfully prosecuted several national newspapers this year.

Challenged to take action more frequently, he says he is reluctant to act in a way which would inhibit freedom of speech, but says that if newspapers flagrantly disregard the law he would be forced to consider introducing tougher laws.

The other guests are Old Bailey judge Peter Rook, leading barrister Desmond Browne QC and Gill Phillips, a senior lawyer in the legal department of the Guardian.

211D03The Lawyer's Dilemma: Defending The Guilty, Suing The Innocent2011110220111105

Clive Anderson and some of the country's top lawyers and judges discuss legal issues of the day.

The third programme in the series explores the moral and ethical dilemmas faced by lawyers including those who are required to defend clients accused of rape, murder and other heinous crimes.

What should a lawyer do if he or she knows or strongly suspects that a client is guilty?

The brutal cross-examination in court of the parents of murdered schoolgirl Millie Dowler raised concerns about the rules that control the limits to which a lawyer can go to defend a client in court.

Are the rules fair?

Solicitors and barristers involved in both criminal and civil cases discuss how they work on the knife edge between different principles which make competing calls on them.

Should their actions be more closely regulated or can we rely on their professional judgment?

Producer: Brian King

An Above The Title production for BBC Radio 4.

Clive Anderson and guests explore the moral and ethical dilemmas faced by lawyers.

Among Clive's guests is Jeremy Moore, the solicitor who had briefed the defence barrister in the Millie Dowler murder trial.

He staunchly defends the cross-examination tactics.

The other guests are leading barristers Chris Sallon QC and Dinah Rose QC and Court of Appeal judge Lord Justice Alan Moses, who defend the legal profession against a range of criticisms levelled by the public.

Clive Anderson asks if the behaviour of lawyers needs to be more closely regulated or if we can we rely on their professional judgment?

211D03The Lawyer's Dilemma: Defending The Guilty, Suing The Innocent2011110220111105

Clive Anderson and some of the country's top lawyers and judges discuss legal issues of the day.

The third programme in the series explores the moral and ethical dilemmas faced by lawyers including those who are required to defend clients accused of rape, murder and other heinous crimes.

What should a lawyer do if he or she knows or strongly suspects that a client is guilty?

The brutal cross-examination in court of the parents of murdered schoolgirl Millie Dowler raised concerns about the rules that control the limits to which a lawyer can go to defend a client in court.

Are the rules fair?

Solicitors and barristers involved in both criminal and civil cases discuss how they work on the knife edge between different principles which make competing calls on them.

Should their actions be more closely regulated or can we rely on their professional judgment?

Producer: Brian King

An Above The Title production for BBC Radio 4.

Clive Anderson and guests explore the moral and ethical dilemmas faced by lawyers.

Among Clive's guests is Jeremy Moore, the solicitor who had briefed the defence barrister in the Millie Dowler murder trial.

He staunchly defends the cross-examination tactics.

The other guests are leading barristers Chris Sallon QC and Dinah Rose QC and Court of Appeal judge Lord Justice Alan Moses, who defend the legal profession against a range of criticisms levelled by the public.

Clive Anderson asks if the behaviour of lawyers needs to be more closely regulated or if we can we rely on their professional judgment?