“There probably has never been a more difficult time to sit on a jury”

It is understandable that emotions can run high, and that people desperately want to know what is being done to find the individual or individuals responsible in the wake of a tragedy that has cost someone their life.

After all, serious crimes can have a serious, and long-lasting, impact on people living in the areas in which they are committed.

I write this a short time after leaving Sheffield Magistrates’ Court, where the cases of two people charged in connection with the death of 30-year-old Shanice Brookes were heard on Friday afternoon (May 29, 2026).

Charity worker Shanice, who leaves behind a young son, had been making the most of the Bank Holiday weekend when she was shot outside the One Four One bar on Sheffield city centre’s popular West Street in the early hours of Monday.

Shanice had been an innocent bystander to an altercation outside the bar in the moments before the gun was fired.

The role we all have to play in the pursuit of justice

When things unfold as they should, the pursuit of justice can bring both answers and closure for those affected by a crime.

Justice is also what the public demands, and should be able to expect, following such an offence.

But in order for justice to be done - and for it to be seen to be done through mediums such as court reports - a strict set of rules must be followed when it comes to what is and what is not included, as a case makes its way through the criminal justice system.

At the heart of this set of rules, is 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.

But these principles have to be balanced with the hallowed concept of open justice and freedom of the press, as they attempt to act as the eyes and ears of the public.

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.

Or to quieten all the noise coming from a myriad of different directions and to focus on the facts presented during a trial.

Consequently, the rules for how active court cases are reported have probably never been more necessary.

They fall under the Contempt of Court Act 1981, as part of which it is possible to punish any media organisation - through fines and on occasion, custody - which publishes anything that creates “a substantial risk of serious prejudice.”

This begins as soon as a case becomes active, usually when police make an arrest or put measures in place to facilitate that happening, and continues right through to the moment when a suspect is either convicted or acquitted.

This is in order to ensure its potential trial jury is not prejudiced, and the case does not collapse.

That risk of prejudice is the reason why reporting restrictions are imposed, it is the reason why online comment sections on active court cases either have to be constantly monitored or turned off.

And whilst ensuring that nothing published about an ongoing case could create a risk of prejudice is something that all media organisations must strictly adhere to, members of the public have a responsibility, too.

After all, every social media user, member or vlogger is a potential publisher.

It’s only natural to want to discuss an ongoing case, particularly one you have been adversely affected by, online and share what you think should happen to the person or people responsible.

But if you really do want justice to be served for a victim of crime and their loved ones, the very best thing you can do is to be patient, trust in our legal system, and wait until a case has concluded before you share your thoughts online.