'Why speculating about an ongoing case risks justice being served'
With the issue of Contempt of Court back in the news once again, I wanted to explain why the press - and all other publishers - abiding by these laws
Contempt of court laws
Last week, Rotherham man Joshua Kerry, aged 28, appeared before Westminster Magistrates' Court charged with the murder of Ann Widdecombe, a former Conservative minister and Reform UK spokesperson.
The 78-year-old was found dead at her home in Haytor, Devon, earlier this month, having sustained serious injuries.
The high profile nature of the case has once again thrust the issue of Contempt of Court laws, and what the press can and cannot report before a trial, into the spotlight.
Reform UK leader Nigel Farage is amongst the prominent figures calling for more information about Mr Kerry, and his political views, to be published by members of the press.
These calls come as investigations focused on any possible political motive for the alleged murder continue.
With the issue of Contempt of Court back in the news once again, I wanted to explain why the press - and all other publishers - abiding by these laws helps to ensure justice is not impeded, and crucially, why the language used matters so much.
Why speculating about a case risks justice
By their very nature, high profile cases bring with them a lot of attention.
They can lead to people who perhaps would not ordinarily have cause to concern themselves with the intricacies of our legal system to question certain aspects of it, such as why it works in the way that it does, and whether it is fit for purpose.
We saw such questions following the abhorrent murders of three young girls - Alice da Silva Aguiar, 9, Bebe King, 6, and Elsie Dot Stancombe, 7 - who were killed as they attended a dance class in Southport.
A reporting restriction in place prohibited media outlets from reporting the name of the suspect, now convicted murderer, Axel Rudakubana, because he was then a juvenile.
The lack of information in the immediate aftermath of the horrific killings created a vacuum in which misinformation spread, ultimately leading to widespread protests, targeting so-called asylum hotels in many areas of the country including Manvers, Rotherham.
It also led to a Law Commission review of Contempt of Court laws, aimed at assessing whether they have managed to “keep pace with the rise in online communications and social media.”
As part of a new framework, published by the Law Commission in November 2025, they argued that publishing details like a suspect’s name, age, nationality, ethnicity, religion or immigration status will generally not create a substantial risk of justice being impeded.
And so whilst efforts have been made to adjust some minor aspects of the way in which Contempt of Court laws are interpreted, the fundamental principles still remain.
One such principle is the “strict liability” rule which essentially means that once a case is “active” - a status that tends to be triggered when efforts are made to arrest a suspect - it is an offence to publish material which creates a substantial risk that the course of justice will be seriously prejudiced or impeded.
Usually, this refers to any material which might interfere or influence a current or potential jury’s verdict, either directly or indirectly.
With the wording of the law being open to interpretation, it can make navigating the exact parameters of which exact details might place a report at risk of prejudice pretty difficult.
But ultimately, the question that needs to be asked every single time is whether a particular detail or report could give jurors the impression that a defendant has committed the crime they are accused of.
The reason that such considerations are given is down to one of the key tenets of our legal system: that everyone is entitled to a fair trial - irrespective of who they are, and what they have been accused of.
That right is protected in law, in both criminal and civil proceedings, under the Human Rights Act 1998.
Another fundamental principle on which the law is based is that a suspect in a criminal case should be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Despite what some may think and suggest online, the purpose of the rules around reporting is not to protect a suspect.
Their genuine purpose is to remove every possible obstacle from the path of a possible juror when it comes to the immensely difficult job of adjudicating over a trial, and coming to the right decision based solely on the evidence heard.
Given the sheer amount of material available to most people in society through the computer in their pocket; the nature of social media - which encourages and cultivates the constant sharing of opinions - and the voracious appetite for “true crime” there probably has never been a more difficult time to sit on a jury.
And that is why speculation about a suspect, their guilt or innocence, their motives for an alleged crime, and details of their past - irrespective of how justified a person feels it is - only risks impeding justice, and could lead to a case collapsing.
It could also lead to the individual, or individuals, responsible ending up in a jail cell.
That doesn’t just apply to traditional media outlets anymore, anyone with an audience now also counts as a publisher, so those online, and on social media in particular, also run the risk of being in Contempt of Court.
South Yorkshire’s most senior judge, The Recorder of Sheffield, Judge Jeremy Richardson KC, has issued two warnings against sharing potentially prejudicial material on social media in recent weeks.