Under UK law, that doesn't matter - there is *strict liability* for *criminal* contempt charges.
Judge Marson's order cites section 4(2) of the 1981 Contempt of Court act justifying the reporting ban.
(Excerpt from here: judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/upl…)
(Same source as above)
Let's go back to the order. It put reporting restrictions on *Tommy's* case. Not the case he was covering. The restriction ends when the case he was *covering* ends - but the restriction is NOT on that case.
That makes no sense! There's no jury trial for contempt of court! He's already been sentenced!
Judge Marson convicted Tommy of Contempt of Court, and banned anyone from reporting on - or criticizing - her actions.
Abuse. Of. Power.