The Law Show

The Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood’s Restoring Order and Control policy is underway. It's based - in part - on measures carried out in Denmark which cut asylum claims there to a 40 year low.
From now on in the UK, people granted asylum - refugees - will face a review every two and a half years. If their country of origin is regarded as safe, they may be encouraged, or even forced, to go back.
There are lots of other changes. If someone is refused asylum, they’ll only be allowed a single appeal. If an asylum seeker breaks the law, works illegally or can financially support themselves, they’ll lose their benefits or accommodation.
Alongside the asylum reforms, there are also major changes to settlement in the UK, affecting both refugees and people on work and study visas. From now on, they will have to wait at least 10 years before they can obtain indefinite leave to remain, which means they can settle in the UK without restrictions.
You may be forgiven for thinking -"these are pretty big changes, I don’t recall there being a big debate in parliament or any votes?" And you’d be correct. This was all done through secondary legislation, meaning that it’s a change to existing rules.
But what are the possible legal battles for the government as it tries to introduce some of the toughest asylum laws in Europe?
Presenter: Dr Joelle Grogan
Editor: Tom Bigwood
Producers: Ravi Naik and Charlotte Rowles
Contributors:
Dr Peter Walsh, Senior Researcher and lead on asylum at the Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford
Catherine Barnard, Professor of European Law at the University of Cambridge
Baroness Levitt, Family Justice Minister

Under international law, when can a country declare war on another?
Was it legal for Israel and the United States to have carried out "pre-emptive" airstrikes across most of Iran’s provinces, which started the war? The USA says the attacks were justfied, because of an imminent threat from Iran's nuclear programme, and Israel claims it acted in self-defence.
The Israeli President went further - telling the BBC that focusing on the legality of the war instead of regional security is "mind-boggling" to him.
And what of Iran's response? Was it reasonable under international law? In the last few weeks, practically all its Gulf-state neighbours have been targeted, as well as its drones or missiles landing in Syria, Cyprus, Turkey and Azerbajan.
So does the Iranian retalliation justify the American and Israeli attacks under international law?
And if any country breaks international laws - are there any real consequences?

Presenter: Dr Joelle Grogan
Producers: Ravi Naik and Charlotte Rowles
Editor: Tom Bigwood
Contributors:
Susan Breau, Professor of International law at the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, University of London
Christian Henderson, Professor of International Law, University of Sussex
Éamon Chawke, intellectual property, data protection and commercial law solicitor, Briffa Legal

The Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood says she makes “no apology” for announcing the roll-out of Live Facial Recognition (LFR) to all the police services in England and Wales.
Under a government white paper on policing, the number of Live Facial Recognition vans will increase from 10 to 50.
Police say it’s groundbreaking technology in the fight against crime, but civil liberties groups say it’s authoritarian and a step towards a "surveillance state".
Facial recognition cameras are already used in shops; the difference with LFR is that the software used by police tracks faces against a watchlist - a specific database of faces - from a live video feed.
But the legal framework regulating the use of the technology is a patchwork of common law, human rights legislation and police guidelines, which has been challenged in the High Court.
There is also concern about a lack of oversight over how police watchlists are compiled, and why the number of people on the list now stretches into the thousands.
So is LFR legal?
Presenter: Dr Joelle Grogan
Producers: Ravi Naik and Charlotte Rowles
Editor: Tom Bigwood
Contributors:
Sonja Jessup, BBC London’s home affairs correspondent
Professor Karen Yeung, Interdisciplinary Professorial Fellow in Law, Ethics and Informatics, Birmingham Law School
Dr Asress Gikay, Senior Lecturer in AI, Disruptive Innovation and Law, Brunel, University of London
Richard Ryan a barrister from Blakiston’s, specialising in drone and unmanned aviation law

The courts system in England and Wales is in an unprecedented crisis. The backlog has reached 80,000 cases, and some defendants are being told they won't be able to have a criminal trial until 2030.
The government has introduced the Courts and Tribunals Bill, which contains a raft of measures to tackle delays and bring down the backlog; but the Justice Secretary David Lammy has admitted that things are going to get even worse before they get better.
The most controversial change is a plan to restrict the number of jury trials. The right to judgement by your peers has existed for more than 800 years, but for some offences, that's going to end.
Defendants will lose the right to choose between a jury trial or a magistrate's hearing in so-called "either-way" offences.
Magistrates will get increased sentencing powers - up from 12 months to 18 months.
More serious criminal cases, with likely sentences of up to three years will now be heard by a single judge - and no jury.
And only the most serious "indictable" offences, like murder, manslaughter and rape and any other offence with a sentence of longer than three years will be heard by a jury.
But will the reforms make a difference?
Presenter: Dr Joelle Grogan
Producers: Ravi Naik and Charlotte Rowles
Editor: Tom Bigwood
Contributors:
Sarah Sackman KC, courts and legal services minister
Chris Kinch, KC, who until 2024 was a senior judge at Woolwich Crown Court in south London
David Ford, national chair of the Magistrates Association

The former US ambassador Peter Mandelson is on bail after being arrested on suspicion of Misconduct in Public Office.
Police have been investigating claims that when he was Business secretary, he shared market-sensitive government information with the financier Jeffrey Epstein.
His arrest comes a few days after police arrested Andrew Mountbatten Windsor, also on suspicion of Misconduct in Public Office, when he was a trade envoy. He is suspected of sharing confidential government documents with Epstein.
The arrests come after the release of a large number of files by the US Department of Justice. These relate to the activities of Jeffrey Epstein, who was a convicted sex offender. He died in 2019 while awaiting trial on charges of the sex-trafficking of underage girls.
Andrew Mountbatten Windsor was friends with Epstein. So was Lord Mandelson.
The BBC has approached Andrew Mountbatten Windsor for a response to these claims. He has always rejected any wrongdoing in connection with Jeffrey Epstein and denied any personal gain from his role as trade envoy.
Lord Mandelson has not publicly commented in recent weeks on the Epstein files, but the BBC understands his position is he has not acted in any way criminally and that he was not motivated by financial gain.
But what exactly is Misconduct in Public Office? It's a common law offence, with a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, but the Law Commission of England and Wales describes it as "ill-defined ".
So how did it evolve, who does it apply to, how does it work in practice?
Presenter: Dr Joelle Grogan
Editor: Tom Bigwood
Senior Producer: Ravi Naik
Producer: Charlotte Rowles
Contributors:
Gareth Roberts, Barrister, Exchange chambers
Kate Bex KC, Red Lion chambers
Jeremy Horder, Professor of Criminal Law, the London School of Economics
Dr Hayleigh Bosher, a Reader in Intellectual Property Law at Brunel, University of London.