Thread by @lizziedearden

This seems like a good time to explain reporting restrictions and Contempt of Court.

The Contempt of Court Act 1981 covers several types of offences but is particularly important for governing how criminal proceedings are reported

legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/49/…

The whole aim of the act is to safeguard the judicial process and prevent a jury being "prejudiced" - swayed or affected by what they read or hear outside of court

If they are, people can be wrongly convicted/acquitted or trials have to be stopped and restarted

The law kicks in as soon as proceedings are "active", which happens when someone is arrested, a warrant is put put, charged or summoned to court

Before that happens it's a free for all, and you'll notice the number of articles on a case drop and details get cut

Reporting on magistrates' courts is covered by a separate law, but once a case reaches a crown court the act allows for a "fair and accurate report of legal proceedings held in public, published contemporaneously and in good faith"

There are a raft of additional automatic reporting restrictions contained in different laws restricting specific issues e.g. banning naming people who say they are the victim of a sexual offence and parties under the age of 18

But section 4 (2) of the Contempt of Court Act gives judges the power to make extra orders postponing the publication of reports on all or part of proceedings "where it appears to be necessary for avoiding a substantial risk of prejudice to the administration of justice"

The orders can only be challenged in person, in the court, and ultimately the judge has the final say unless it goes to a higher court or judicial review

They stay in force for as long as the judge wants, normally until a fixed point like the end of another case

The orders apply to absolutely everyone and publication encompasses "any speech, writing, or other communication in whatever form, which is addressed to the public at large or any section of the public"

So yes, that includes social media

There is a "strict liability rule" meaning that creates a substantial risk that the course of justice will be seriously impeded or prejudiced is illegal even if you didn't mean to do it or didn't know about the restrictions

Committing contempt of court is a crime, even if proceedings weren't actually prejudiced.

It's punishable by up to two years imprisonment but it's rare for people to get the full sentence without severe aggravating factors like malice or a particularly high profile publication

Journalists are trained in law and the media tends to stick by the rules.

The problem is that few other people know what they are and social media and the internet more widely can make reporting restrictions essentially redundant

Like in situations like now, when responsible, professional coverage has been stopped and people who have no idea why are filling the gulf regardless

So many people are committing contempt on social media it would be unfeasible for them all to be identified or prosecuted

Final point - reporting restrictions are not routinely interpreted to apply to articles published before they are created or come into effect and it is highly unusual for them to be deleted for that reason