The Contempt of Court Act 1981 is a cornerstone of the UK judicial system, designed to safeguard fair trials by curbing interference in active legal proceedings. Its sub-judice principle reins in media reporting on ongoing cases, a necessity for justice—but one that some journalists and malicious bloggers treat as an inconvenient hurdle. While the Act aims to balance free expression with impartial trials, it’s increasingly tested by those who push boundaries too far or flout it entirely, believing themselves untouchable.
Overview of the Contempt of Court Act 1981
Born from a 1979 European Court of Human Rights rebuke of the UK’s vague contempt laws (Sunday Times v United Kingdom), the Act defines contempt as actions that prejudice justice. It splits contempt into two camps: strict liability, where intent doesn’t matter, and intentional, where it does. Journalists who sensationalise and bloggers who provoke often stumble—or leap—into these categories, risking fines or jail to chase headlines or clout.
- Strict Liability Contempt: This catches anyone whose publication poses a “substantial risk” of serious prejudice to an active case, intent be damned. Think tabloid hacks splashing lurid details across front pages or bloggers speculating wildly—both can taint jurors without meaning to.
- Intentional Contempt: This targets deliberate meddling, like intimidating witnesses or jurors. Some journalists and self-styled “citizen reporters” cross this line knowingly, betting the law won’t catch up.
Understanding Sub-Judice
Sub-judice—”under judgement”—kicks in when a case is active, barring publications that could sway its outcome. It’s a shield for fair trials, but to certain journalists it’s a gag, and to malicious bloggers, it’s a challenge. They argue it stifles truth, yet their reckless output often drowns out justice with noise.
When Sub-Judice Applies
The clock starts ticking the moment a suspect is arrested, a warrant issued, or charges laid—proceedings are “active,” and risky reporting is off-limits. For journalists, this means no speculative scoops; for bloggers, no vigilante exposés. Yet both regularly test the limits. Take the 2011 super-injunction saga—paparazzi and online loudmouths alike ignored court orders, leaking names and details until judges cracked down. The Act allows basic facts, but the line blurs when ambition or arrogance takes over.
Journalists Who Go Too Far
Some journalists, cloaked in press freedom, treat sub-judice as a suggestion. In 2011, during Vincent Tabak’s trial for Joanna Yeates’ murder, tabloids ran feverish stories—some hinting at guilt before evidence was heard. The Attorney General fired off warnings, but the damage lingered: jurors aren’t immune to headlines. High-profile cases amplify the temptation—reporters chase exclusives, damn the consequences, and cry censorship when hauled up. Their defence? Public interest. The reality? Sales and ego often trump ethics, leaving courts to mop up the bias.
Malicious Bloggers Who Think They’re Above the Law
Then there’s the bloggers—self-proclaimed truth-tellers who scoff at sub-judice, convinced they’re beyond reach. The 2018 Tommy Robinson case is a glaring example: he livestreamed outside Leeds Crown Court during a trial, ranting about defendants and risking a mistrial. Jailed for contempt, he played martyr, but the stunt showed how bloggers exploit platforms like X to dodge accountability. Unlike newsrooms with legal teams, these lone wolves thrive on chaos, sensationalising cases for clicks. They’re not journalists—they’re provocateurs, and the Act’s strict liability net doesn’t care about their motives.
Risks and Consequences
- Undermining Justice: Overzealous reporting—whether from Fleet Street or a basement keyboard—biases jurors and derails trials.
- Ruining Lives: Premature leaks or rants can smear the innocent, reputations shredded before verdicts land.
- Legal Reckoning: Fines and prison await offenders. Robinson got 13 months; journalists have faced hefty penalties too—yet some still roll the dice.
The Social Media Wildcard
Platforms like X turbocharge the problem. Journalists tweet teasers that skirt sub-judice, while bloggers spew unchecked vitriol. In 2021, during the Wayne Couzens trial for Sarah Everard’s murder, X buzzed with speculation—some posts from “citizen journalists” veered into contempt territory. No prosecutions followed, but the risk was real. Casual users get caught too, unaware their hot takes carry the same weight as a broadsheet. The Act doesn’t discriminate—intentional or not, the law bites back.
Why They Push It
Journalists argue sub-judice stifles investigative grit; bloggers claim it’s a relic in the age of instant news. Both have a point—public scrutiny can expose corruption—but their excesses often serve self-interest over society. Reputable outlets self-regulate (mostly), while malicious bloggers rarely do, banking on lax enforcement or public sympathy. The Act’s critics call it draconian; its defenders say it’s the last line against trial-by-media.
Conclusion
The Contempt of Court Act 1981 and sub-judice are vital guardrails for UK justice, but they’re under siege from journalists who overreach and bloggers who defy. Freedom of speech isn’t a free pass to prejudice trials—yet some treat it as such, gambling with fairness for profit or fame. The law’s response must be firm: respect sub-judice, or face the consequences. Justice demands nothing less.
When Investigative Police say go to the Press/Media, and a person does this. Will this be used against them? and if so, is this not a form of Entrapment which is not admissible in Criminal Law.
It could also be a version of perverting the course of Justice using underhand tactics When no updates have been given in a case every 28 days. No information given….
How can Miscarriages of Justice, be dealt with in silence.
How can Parliament Act breaches be addressed in silence. How can PACE regulation breaches be addressed in Silence. How can Arrest without reason x 2 be addressed in silence. How can refusal of SAR information to show this is the case be addressed in silence. Abuse of Process be addressed in silence.
Duty of care, how can this be addressed in silence. Abuse of Human Rights, how can this be addressed in silence. Crime reports not addressed with crime reference number allocated. How can this be addressed in silence. Etc etc the list goes on. Criminal Act the 9 codes of Ethics not followed. How Do you call out corruption and who is involved in silence?