Police and the press will be free to reveal more about suspects under proposed new contempt of court laws to prevent a repeat of the Southport riots.
In a victory for freedom of speech, the Law Commission has recommended ministers overhaul the law on contempt of court so that police forces can combat misinformation swirling online about a suspect after an arrest.
In a review published today, the commission says current rules are having a ‘chilling effect’ on the release of information to the public as police feel ‘inhibited’ from revealing key facts for fear of prejudicing a suspect’s future trial.
The independent body, which advises ministers on new laws, has recommended moving the time when criminal proceedings are considered ‘active’ from arrest to charge, allowing more scope for information about suspects to be published.
Under proposed reforms, the commission has backed new police guidance that says publishing certain details, such as the name, age, ethnicity and nationality of a suspect is unlikely to prejudice a suspect’s trial.
The review comes after false rumours about the killer of three young girls in Southport at a Taylor Swift-themed dance class last July led to riots across the country.
Merseyside Police was criticised for failing to address posts on social media that the attacker was a Muslim asylum seeker who had arrived in the UK on a small boat across the Channel.
The only information released by police was that the suspect was a 17-year-old from Banks, in Lancashire, who was originally from Cardiff.
Riots erupted on July 30, 2024 after false information spread on social media about the suspect in the murders of three girls at a Taylor Swift-themed dance class
False rumours about the Southport killer sparked violence on the streets (Pictured: a court sketch of Rudakubana)
Later, it emerged that the Chief Constable Serena Kennedy wanted to divulge more details to correct the rumours, including revealing that Axel Rudakubana hailed from a Christian family who had come to the UK from Rwanda.
But she was advised not to by a local prosecutor.
In that case, the commission found the ‘communication by the police was inadequate, if not misleading, but it was borne of uncertainty as to what could lawfully be said’.
Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, told the commission that reform was needed because ‘the desired outcome is that the police should feel less inhibited about setting out basic and sober details in the wake of a terrorist or other horrifying attack’.
Yesterday, Commissioner for Criminal Law, Professor Penney Lewis, promised the proposed reforms would make the law clearer and ‘remove some of the chilling effect that we heard so much about during the consultation’.
Her recommendations include allowing journalists to record proceedings in court for note taking purposes, which is currently against the law.
Professor Penney Lewis is the Commissioner for Criminal Law
The commission wants the courts to establish an ‘authorisation process’ so that accredited journalists can make audio recording of proceedings, which could revolutionise the way that the public learn about court cases.
Over 100 people receive prison sentences each year for contempt of court in proceedings brought by the Attorney General.
But the Law Commission wants the Attorney General’s decision to be subject to judicial review.
The commission also wants to split the offence into four categories to tackle those who disrupt proceedings, breach a court order, publish material that risks seriously prejudicing a trial, or act to deliberately interfere with the administration of justice.
The Government will consider the recommendations before deciding whether to reform the law.
Professor Lewis said: ‘Contempt of court laws serve a vital public interest. They protect the administration of justice, ensure fair trials and maintain public confidence in the justice system, but have become fragmented and unclear in the modern communications age.
‘Our review found significant problems with coherence, consistency and clarity across civil, criminal and family courts.
‘Our recommendations modernise the law whilst balancing the right to a fair trial with freedom of expression and the effective administration of justice.’
