Unreliable Evidence

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.

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

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.

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

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 planning laws fail to prevent unwanted and un-needed development.

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

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 planning laws fail to prevent unwanted and un-needed development.

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

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.

Clive Anderson asks top legal guests if justice delayed is justice denied.

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

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.

Clive Anderson asks top legal guests if justice delayed is justice denied.

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

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.

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

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.

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

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 Richardson 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.

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

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 Richardson 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.

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

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.

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

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.

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

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.

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

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

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.

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

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

Clive Anderson and guests ask whether the laws protecting our data are keeping up with technological change.

In May 2018, the EU brought in the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). It includes some of the strictest data protection rules in the world and covers everyone who handles data - from tech giants like Google and Facebook, to small family businesses keeping customer records.

Are these laws, and the regulators who enforce them, doing enough to keep our details safe? Are they sufficiently powerful to hold multinational corporations to account? Or does GDPR add layers of bureaucracy which hamper technological development? Cynthia O'Donoghue from law firm Reed Smith argues that high-tech medical interventions are being held back by over-regulation of the data they need to function.

The programme also considers the responsibilities of individuals to look after their own data, and the limits of consent in the online world.

Producer: Hannah Marshall
A 7digital production for BBC Radio 4

Clive Anderson and guests ask whether the laws protecting our data are fit for purpose.

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

Clive Anderson and guests ask whether the laws protecting our data are keeping up with technological change.

In May 2018, the EU brought in the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). It includes some of the strictest data protection rules in the world and covers everyone who handles data - from tech giants like Google and Facebook, to small family businesses keeping customer records.

Are these laws, and the regulators who enforce them, doing enough to keep our details safe? Are they sufficiently powerful to hold multinational corporations to account? Or does GDPR add layers of bureaucracy which hamper technological development? Cynthia O'Donoghue from law firm Reed Smith argues that high-tech medical interventions are being held back by over-regulation of the data they need to function.

The programme also considers the responsibilities of individuals to look after their own data, and the limits of consent in the online world.

Producer: Hannah Marshall
A 7digital production for BBC Radio 4

Clive Anderson and guests ask whether the laws protecting our data are fit for purpose.

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

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?

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'?

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

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?

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'?

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

Clive Anderson and guests discuss Criminal Behaviour Orders (CBOs) and other measures to tackle anti-social behaviour. Are they vital for curbing public nuisance - or a disproportionate, discriminatory response to behaviour which isn't criminal?

CBOs were introduced in 2014 to replace Anti-Social Behaviour Orders. Imposed by a magistrate or a judge once someone has been convicted of a crime, they can be used to control all sorts of behaviour - from aggressive begging, to domestic abuse, prank calls to persistent shoplifting. They can, for example, prevent people from entering specific areas of town, stop them from associating with particular individuals, or compel them to enter a treatment programme for addiction. Their use is increasing year on year, and Andy Prophet, Assistant Chief Constable for Essex Police, argues they are a valuable tool that helps keep our streets safe.

One of the most high-profile uses of a CBO was in June 2018, when five members of the 1011 gang in west London were banned from making drill music - a type of rap which Metropolitan Police Commissioner Cressida Dick has blamed for fuelling murders and violent crime in London. Melanie Simpson was the barrister representing members of 1011 in court and she says that, far from keeping crime under control, these CBOs add to the alienation that causes crime and anti-social behaviour in the first place. Along with youth justice solicitor Greg Stewart, she believes the orders are too onerous, setting people up to fail and, too often, leading to time in prison. In 2018, more than 3000 people were convicted of breaching their CBO and roughly a third received an immediate custodial sentence as a consequence.

The programme also hears allegations that the use of CBOs and other anti-social behaviour measures unfairly targets young, black men living in deprived urban areas.

Producer: Hannah Marshall

A 7digital production for BBC Radio 4

Clive Anderson and guests ask whether laws to tackle anti-social behaviour are working.

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

Clive Anderson and guests discuss the crisis hitting the NHS over negligence claims.

The cost of negligence claims against the NHS has quadrupled to £1.6bn in the decade since 2006 as the number of claims has nearly tripled and claimants' legal costs have risen from £77m to £487m. The spiralling compensation bill is putting huge financial pressure on the NHS and threatens to force doctors out of the profession.

Should patients who have experienced potentially life-changing injuries as result of medical negligence be expected to forego compensation? Clive Anderson explores calls to reform the law relating to compensation for medical errors as the cost of payouts continues to rise.

Patients' advocates say proposals to cap payouts would encourage a deny and defend culture within the NHS, which could prevent claimants from receiving justice as the cases become too expensive to fight. This would attack the very basic principle of full compensation that aims, in legal terms, to "put the wronged person back to where they would have been without the negligence."

Clive's guests explore the impact of Liz Truss's decision, as Lord Chancellor, to change the rate at which inflation is calculated when awarding compensation, adding £1bn to the NHS compensation bill. Her decision prompted a backlash from GPs and insurers who say it will "overcompensate" victims and force many doctors out of the profession.

Should the UK adopt a no-fault approach to compensation, as in New Zealand? Or move to a tariff-based system, as already happens for victims of violent crime? Or is it time to abandon the full compensation principle altogether?

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

Clive Anderson and guests discuss the crisis hitting the NHS over negligence claims.

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

Clive Anderson and guests discuss the crisis hitting the NHS over negligence claims.

The cost of negligence claims against the NHS has quadrupled to £1.6bn in the decade since 2006 as the number of claims has nearly tripled and claimants' legal costs have risen from £77m to £487m. The spiralling compensation bill is putting huge financial pressure on the NHS and threatens to force doctors out of the profession.

Should patients who have experienced potentially life-changing injuries as result of medical negligence be expected to forego compensation? Clive Anderson explores calls to reform the law relating to compensation for medical errors as the cost of payouts continues to rise.

Patients' advocates say proposals to cap payouts would encourage a deny and defend culture within the NHS, which could prevent claimants from receiving justice as the cases become too expensive to fight. This would attack the very basic principle of full compensation that aims, in legal terms, to "put the wronged person back to where they would have been without the negligence."

Clive's guests explore the impact of Liz Truss's decision, as Lord Chancellor, to change the rate at which inflation is calculated when awarding compensation, adding £1bn to the NHS compensation bill. Her decision prompted a backlash from GPs and insurers who say it will "overcompensate" victims and force many doctors out of the profession.

Should the UK adopt a no-fault approach to compensation, as in New Zealand? Or move to a tariff-based system, as already happens for victims of violent crime? Or is it time to abandon the full compensation principle altogether?

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

Clive Anderson and guests discuss the crisis hitting the NHS over negligence claims.

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

Is the law fair to asylum seekers? Clive Anderson asks his expert guests if the law makes it too hard for people to prove they have a legitimate claim to asylum.

Around 30,000 people with immigration status issues are currently being held in UK detention centres, some for considerable lengths of time and in what NGOs have described as highly unsatisfactory conditions.

The UK is the only European Union country with no time limit on immigration detention. Issues arising from the UK's immigration detention system have led to a series of official inquiries.

Clive and his guests discuss concerns that it is currently too difficult for asylum seekers to prove who they are and where they have come from, or to convince the authorities that they have been persecuted because of their race, religion or sexuality. Campaigners claim that LGBT asylum seekers are often put though humiliating procedures to prove their sexual identity.

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

Clive Anderson and guests debate whether the law is fair to asylum seekers.

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

Is the law fair to asylum seekers? Clive Anderson asks his expert guests if the law makes it too hard for people to prove they have a legitimate claim to asylum.

Around 30,000 people with immigration status issues are currently being held in UK detention centres, some for considerable lengths of time and in what NGOs have described as highly unsatisfactory conditions.

The UK is the only European Union country with no time limit on immigration detention. Issues arising from the UK's immigration detention system have led to a series of official inquiries.

Clive and his guests discuss concerns that it is currently too difficult for asylum seekers to prove who they are and where they have come from, or to convince the authorities that they have been persecuted because of their race, religion or sexuality. Campaigners claim that LGBT asylum seekers are often put though humiliating procedures to prove their sexual identity.

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

Clive Anderson and guests debate whether the law is fair to asylum seekers.

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

Clive Anderson and guests discuss whether the Home Office should have the power to take away the citizenship of someone born and brought up in Britain.

If a British person travels to Syria and joins a proscribed terrorist group, should they be allowed to keep their British citizenship? The case of Shamima Begum, whose citizenship was revoked earlier this year, made headlines - but she's far from the only British-born person to have her passport taken away. In 2017, the Home Office issued 104 deprivation of citizenship orders in cases where the Secretary of State believed that the deprivation was `conducive to the public good`.

Are these deprivations a vital tool in our fight against terrorism, or a worrying move towards turning citizenship into a privilege rather than an inalienable right.

Immigration lawyer Fahad Ansari argues that, by revoking citizenship from people who have the right to citizenship in another country, the government is creating a two-tier system, where someone with family ties outside Britain can be treated differently to someone without them. The former independent reviewer of terrorism legislation Lord Carlile says that we need to be able to protect the public from people who intend to carry out terror attacks and removing citizenship is one way to do that, particularly where there is not enough evidence for a criminal trial.

Clive's guests will also explore what's required to become a British citizen, attempting to answer some questions from the Life in the UK test with Professor Thom Brooks from Durham Law School - himself a dual British-US citizen.

Producer: Hannah Marshall
A 7digital production for BBC Radio 4

Clive Anderson and guests ask if the government should be able to revoke our citizenship.

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

Clive Anderson and guests discuss whether the Home Office should have the power to take away the citizenship of someone born and brought up in Britain.

If a British person travels to Syria and joins a proscribed terrorist group, should they be allowed to keep their British citizenship? The case of Shamima Begum, whose citizenship was revoked earlier this year, made headlines - but she's far from the only British-born person to have her passport taken away. In 2017, the Home Office issued 104 deprivation of citizenship orders in cases where the Secretary of State believed that the deprivation was `conducive to the public good`.

Are these deprivations a vital tool in our fight against terrorism, or a worrying move towards turning citizenship into a privilege rather than an inalienable right.

Immigration lawyer Fahad Ansari argues that, by revoking citizenship from people who have the right to citizenship in another country, the government is creating a two-tier system, where someone with family ties outside Britain can be treated differently to someone without them. The former independent reviewer of terrorism legislation Lord Carlile says that we need to be able to protect the public from people who intend to carry out terror attacks and removing citizenship is one way to do that, particularly where there is not enough evidence for a criminal trial.

Clive's guests will also explore what's required to become a British citizen, attempting to answer some questions from the Life in the UK test with Professor Thom Brooks from Durham Law School - himself a dual British-US citizen.

Producer: Hannah Marshall
A 7digital production for BBC Radio 4

Clive Anderson and guests ask if the government should be able to revoke our citizenship.

Series exploring and analysing the 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.

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

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.

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

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.

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

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.

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

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

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.

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

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

Clive Anderson and guests examine concerns that the government's programme to modernise the court system through use of digital technologies could threaten access to justice.

Today, it's common practice for vulnerable witnesses to give evidence via video link. But government proposals could see the entire court process move online. Critics of the plans say that, without access to a lawyer, vulnerable defendants might act against their best interests, or may even be manipulated by a third party.

Clive hears concerns that, without a defendant appearing in the dock, victims and their families might not feel justice was being done. and - without a physical courtroom for journalists to attend - justice might no longer be seen to be done.

There is a widespread worry that cost-cutting is being prioritised over justice, and that the digitally illiterate risk being shut out of legal system, with profound consequences.

Supporters of the proposals claim digital courts will save the public time and money, be easier to navigate, and meet the demands of the "internet society" that services be delivered online.

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

Clive Anderson and guests ask if plans to modernise the courts threaten access to justice.

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

Clive Anderson and guests examine concerns that the government's programme to modernise the court system through use of digital technologies could threaten access to justice.

Today, it's common practice for vulnerable witnesses to give evidence via video link. But government proposals could see the entire court process move online. Critics of the plans say that, without access to a lawyer, vulnerable defendants might act against their best interests, or may even be manipulated by a third party.

Clive hears concerns that, without a defendant appearing in the dock, victims and their families might not feel justice was being done. and - without a physical courtroom for journalists to attend - justice might no longer be seen to be done.

There is a widespread worry that cost-cutting is being prioritised over justice, and that the digitally illiterate risk being shut out of legal system, with profound consequences.

Supporters of the proposals claim digital courts will save the public time and money, be easier to navigate, and meet the demands of the "internet society" that services be delivered online.

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

Clive Anderson and guests ask if plans to modernise the courts threaten access to justice.

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

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?

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

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?

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

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.

Lawyers discuss extradition and apparent imbalances between countries.

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

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.

Lawyers discuss extradition and apparent imbalances between countries.

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

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?

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

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?

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

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.

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

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

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.

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

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

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.

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

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

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.

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

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

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.

Clive Anderson and guests discuss concerns that our courts are inhibiting free speech.

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

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.

Clive Anderson and guests discuss concerns that our courts are inhibiting free speech.

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

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

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

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

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

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 human rights on the battlefield.

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

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 human rights on the battlefield.

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

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.

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

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

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.

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

Series exploring and analysing the 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.

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

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

An Above The Title production for BBC Radio 4.

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

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

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

An Above The Title production for BBC Radio 4.

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

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

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.

Clive Anderson and some of the country's top legal minds discuss the future of jury trials

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

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.

Clive Anderson and some of the country's top legal minds discuss the future of jury trials

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

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?

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

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?

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

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.

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

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.

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

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.

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

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.

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

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.

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

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.

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

The law against Misconduct in Public Office has been criticised by the Law Commission as `unclear, ambiguous and in urgent need of reform`. Clive Anderson and guests ask how it should be changed to control the behaviour of the police, politicians and other public officials.

Misconduct in Public Office is a centuries old common law offence, but the number of prosecutions under it has risen from just 2 in 2005 to 135 in 2014. It's been used to charge prison officers for selling information to journalists, a local councillor for using his position to re-route a road away from his property and a paramedic for groping a woman in the back of his ambulance. Some of these prosecutions have been successful, others not. It was also the law under which an unsuccessful private prosecution was brought against Boris Johnson, for claims he made during the Brexit campaign.

The offence carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment and critics say that there's uncertainty around everything from who is a public officer to what constitutes misconduct.

Is it a crucial tool in keeping our public servants to a high standard of behaviour? Or a somewhat archaic law which should be eliminated from a legal landscape overgrown with offences to deal with corrupt, dishonest or disreputable practices?

Producer: Hannah Marshall
A 7digital production for BBC Radio 4

Clive Anderson and guests ask if the law on Misconduct in Public Office needs reform.

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

The law against Misconduct in Public Office has been criticised by the Law Commission as `unclear, ambiguous and in urgent need of reform`. Clive Anderson and guests ask how it should be changed to control the behaviour of the police, politicians and other public officials.

Misconduct in Public Office is a centuries old common law offence, but the number of prosecutions under it has risen from just 2 in 2005 to 135 in 2014. It's been used to charge prison officers for selling information to journalists, a local councillor for using his position to re-route a road away from his property and a paramedic for groping a woman in the back of his ambulance. Some of these prosecutions have been successful, others not. It was also the law under which an unsuccessful private prosecution was brought against Boris Johnson, for claims he made during the Brexit campaign.

The offence carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment and critics say that there's uncertainty around everything from who is a public officer to what constitutes misconduct.

Is it a crucial tool in keeping our public servants to a high standard of behaviour? Or a somewhat archaic law which should be eliminated from a legal landscape overgrown with offences to deal with corrupt, dishonest or disreputable practices?

Producer: Hannah Marshall
A 7digital production for BBC Radio 4

Clive Anderson and guests ask if the law on Misconduct in Public Office needs reform.

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

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

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

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

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

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?

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

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?

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

Clive Anderson and guests ask if public inquiries are worth the huge investment of time and resources. Are judges, as establishment figures, the right people to spearhead these investigations?

Public inquiries are set up to uncover the truth following scandals or perceived injustices. They are designed to heal wounds through the rigorous, public airing of the issues and circumstances around controversial events. But they are also expensive and slow. The Bloody Sunday Inquiry took 12 years to report and cost £192m.

The Inquiries Act 2005 was intended to reduce the length and cost of inquiries, while maintaining the confidence of both the parties at the centre of the inquiry and the wider public. Has it been successful?

Clive's guests discuss whether judges are the right people to head inquiries. Their ability to hear evidence and reach judgements is not in dispute, but are they too much part of the establishment to be always truly independent?

Are the recommendations made by inquiries adequately implemented? In his 2,000 page report Sir Robert Francis QC made 290 recommendations. How many is too many?

And do inquiries really need lawyers to be involved at all?

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

Clive Anderson asks if public inquiries are worth the investment of time and money.

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

Clive Anderson and guests ask if public inquiries are worth the huge investment of time and resources. Are judges, as establishment figures, the right people to spearhead these investigations?

Public inquiries are set up to uncover the truth following scandals or perceived injustices. They are designed to heal wounds through the rigorous, public airing of the issues and circumstances around controversial events. But they are also expensive and slow. The Bloody Sunday Inquiry took 12 years to report and cost £192m.

The Inquiries Act 2005 was intended to reduce the length and cost of inquiries, while maintaining the confidence of both the parties at the centre of the inquiry and the wider public. Has it been successful?

Clive's guests discuss whether judges are the right people to head inquiries. Their ability to hear evidence and reach judgements is not in dispute, but are they too much part of the establishment to be always truly independent?

Are the recommendations made by inquiries adequately implemented? In his 2,000 page report Sir Robert Francis QC made 290 recommendations. How many is too many?

And do inquiries really need lawyers to be involved at all?

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

Clive Anderson asks if public inquiries are worth the investment of time and money.

Series exploring and analysing 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 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.

Series exploring and analysing 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 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.

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

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.

Clive Anderson and guests ask if too much justice is being conducted behind closed doors.

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

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.

Clive Anderson and guests ask if too much justice is being conducted behind closed doors.

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

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.

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

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.

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

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'.

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

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'.

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

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.

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

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

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.

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

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

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.

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

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.

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

The programme brings together the former Director of Public Prosecutions, Lord Macdonald who has just overseen the Government's review of its counter terrorism powers and Lord Carlile, who for the past ten years been the government's independent reviewer of terrorism legislation.

They agree that the right balance has to be struck between security and the protection of civil liberties, but disagree about the extent to which this has been achieved.

Both men have been able to see the intelligence information on which government anti-terrorism legislation has been based. Lord Carlile believes security measures such as control orders have averted terrorist attacks, while Lord Macdonald worries they have often prevented justice being done.

Also taking part in the discussion is human rights barrister, Tim Owen QC, who has appeared in several leading cases relating to control orders and other anti-terrorism measures.

They discuss the law relating to torture, deportation, stop and search powers and the new measures being brought in to replace the highly controversial control orders.

Producer: Brian King

An Above The Title production for BBC Radio 4.

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

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

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.

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

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

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.

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

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

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

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?

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

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

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

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?

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

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

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 world 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 country 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.

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

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

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 world 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 country 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.

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

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

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.

Clive Anderson and guests expose the 'myth' of the concept of common-law marriage.

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

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.

Clive Anderson and guests expose the 'myth' of the concept of common-law marriage.

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

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

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.

Clive Anderson and guests explore the ongoing legal arguments about assisted suicide.

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

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

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.

Clive Anderson and guests explore the ongoing legal arguments about assisted suicide.

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

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?

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

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?

Series exploring and analysing the 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?

Producer: Brian King
An Above The Title production for BBC Radio 4.

Clive Anderson and guests discuss the major legal issues of the day.

Series exploring and analysing the 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?

Producer: Brian King
An Above The Title production for BBC Radio 4.

Clive Anderson and guests discuss the major legal issues of the day.

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

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.

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

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.

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

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.

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

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.

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

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.

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

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.

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

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.

Clive Anderson asks why the law is struggling to reduce the gender pay gap.

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

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.

Clive Anderson asks why the law is struggling to reduce the gender pay gap.

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

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.

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

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.

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

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 guests discuss how the law might save lives on the roads.

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

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 guests discuss how the law might save lives on the roads.

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

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?

What legal standards should be applied to troops in the line of fire?

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

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?

What legal standards should be applied to troops in the line of fire?

Series exploring and analysing 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 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.

Series exploring and analysing 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 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.

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

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

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?

How much information about us is in circulation and what are our rights to access it?

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

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.

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

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.

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

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.

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

Business secretary Vince Cable says he 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 controversial proposed changes in employment law.

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

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 says he 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 controversial proposed changes in employment law.

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

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.

Clive Anderson and guests ask if the law offers enough protection to whistleblowers.

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

In the wake of Jimmy Savile and other recent abuse cases, complex legal questions have arisen about who, apart from the perpetrators themselves, should be held to blame - and liable to pay compensation.

Clive's guests, all leading experts in the field, argue about the way the courts are currently applying the law of vicarious liability to hold employers to blame for the actions of their staff, even when there is no indication of any fault on their part.

In what all agree is rapidly becoming a legal minefield, the courts are widening their interpretation of who can be legitimately sued in these circumstances. Bodies are increasingly being held liable for the actions of people for whom they are responsible but do not formally employ. This could include freelancers or other casual workers or even volunteers working for a charity.

Senior barrister, Edward Faulks says the law is being misused to identify parties with deep pockets and to ensure victims receive compensation from someone.

Producer: Brian King

An Above The Title production for BBC Radio 4.

Clive Anderson and guests discuss who should pay compensation to victims of abuse.

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

In the first of a new series, Clive Anderson and guests discuss the legal liability of organisations for crimes or other misbehaviours committed by people who work for them.

In the wake of Jimmy Savile and other recent abuse cases, complex legal questions have arisen about who, apart from the perpetrators themselves, should be held to blame - and liable to pay compensation.

Clive's guests, all leading experts in the field, argue about the way the courts are currently applying the law of vicarious liability to hold employers to blame for the actions of their staff, even when there is no indication of any fault on their part.

In what all agree is rapidly becoming a legal minefield, the courts are widening their interpretation of who can be legitimately sued in these circumstances. Bodies are increasingly being held liable for the actions of people for whom they are responsible but do not formally employ. This could include freelancers or other casual workers or even volunteers working for a charity.

Senior barrister, Edward Faulks says the law is being misused to identify parties with deep pockets and to ensure victims receive compensation from someone.

Producer: Brian King

An Above The Title production for BBC Radio 4.

Clive Anderson and guests discuss who should pay compensation to victims of abuse.

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

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.

Key figures involved discuss concerns that the system for young offenders is in crisis.

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

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.

Key figures involved discuss concerns that the system for young offenders is in crisis.

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

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.

Clive Anderson and guests discuss the treatment of young offenders in the courts.

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

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.

Clive Anderson and guests discuss the treatment of young offenders in the courts.

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

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.

[Rptd Sat 10.15pm].

A panel of senior judges, lawyers and academics debate tougher sentencing laws.

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

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.

[Rpt of Wed 8.00pm].

A panel of senior judges, lawyers and academics debate tougher sentencing laws.

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

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.

[Rptd Sat 10.15pm].

Clive Anderson discusses internet law with a panel of judges, barristers and academics.

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

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.

[Rpt of Wed 8.00pm].

Clive Anderson discusses internet law with a panel of judges, barristers and academics.

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

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.

[Rptd Sat 10.15pm].

Is the post of Attorney General compatible with that of a senior politician?

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

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.

[Rpt of Wed 8.00pm].

Clive Anderson discusses the role of Attorney General with a panel of legal experts.

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

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?

[Rptd Sat 10.15pm].

Clive Anderson asks if we actually need a new judicial selection process.

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day

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?

[Rpt of Wed 8.00pm].

Clive Anderson asks whether we need a new judicial selection process.

Series exploring and analysing the legal issues of the day