Reporting Restrictions in Criminal Cases
Legal Limits on Reporting Criminal Proceedings – A Guide for Journalists and Social Media Users
The criminal justice system in England and Wales is founded on the principle of open justice, which holds that court proceedings should ordinarily be open to public scrutiny and reportable by the media. However, there are circumstances in which certain details must be withheld or publication delayed to safeguard the fairness of a trial, protect the welfare of vulnerable individuals, or preserve the presumption of innocence. These reporting restrictions apply not only to newspapers, television and radio broadcasters, and news websites, but also to individuals who publish material on social media platforms such as Facebook, X (formerly Twitter) or TikTok.
Need urgent advice on contempt of court or media reporting restrictions?
If you are concerned about what can lawfully be published, contact us today for clear, confidential guidance. Call us on 0151 541 2040 or email info@carruthers-law.co.uk.
Open Justice and the Need for Restrictions
Complete freedom to report everything that happens in court can sometimes conflict with other fundamental rights and interests. In particular:
Presumption of Innocence:
Every person charged with a criminal offence is presumed innocent until proved guilty. If prejudicial information, such as untested allegations, prior convictions or highly emotive details appears in the media before or during a trial, it may influence jurors or potential jurors. The risk is that the trial would no longer be decided solely on the admissible evidence and legal arguments presented in court.
Fair Trial Rights:
Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights guarantees the right to a fair and public hearing before an independent tribunal. If publicity cross, examines facts not placed before the jury or stirs up public passion, the fairness of the trial may be jeopardised. In extreme cases, a judge may have to discharge the jury and order a retrial, thereby delaying justice and causing further distress for victims and witnesses.
Protection of Vulnerable Individuals:
Children, victims of sexual offences or those who may suffer intimidation may be endangered or traumatised if their identities or other personal details become public. Anonymity provisions help ensure that young people or vulnerable complainants are not further harmed by press intrusion or social media speculation.
Because of these competing considerations there are automatic restrictions and the law enables judges to impose further reporting restrictions in defined and limited circumstances. Such restrictions must be necessary and proportionate, balancing open justice with the rights of participants in the proceedings.
Automatic Restrictions on Pre, Trial Proceedings
There are statutory restrictions designed to ensure that pre trial publicity does not prejudice the trial:
Committal or Sending for Trial Hearings:
At the Magistrates’ Court, when a serious offence proceeds to the Crown Court (known as a committal or sending hearing), reporting is limited to basic information: the defendant’s name, age, address, bail status and the charge. Journalists may not report evidence given at that stage. Once the defendant has been tried and sentenced, full reporting of the committal hearing may follow.
Bail or Variation Hearings:
Many intermediate hearings (for example, bail applications or pre, trial review hearings) also attract restrictions. The press may generally report that the hearing took place and the outcome (for example, whether bail was granted or refused), but not details of the evidence or arguments unless and until that information is placed before a jury at trial.
Disclosure and Case Management Hearings:
When defence and prosecution exchange evidence in advance of trial, there is a risk that reporting on documents or witness statements may prejudice jurors. Hence, these proceedings are typically off, limits until the trial opens, unless the judge permits otherwise.
These rules are driven by the same principle: to prevent untested material from reaching the public until it can be scrutinised in open court. After the trial concludes, journalists may report in full on what transpired in those earlier hearings, provided there is no residual restriction in place.
Section 4(2) Contempt of Court Act 1981: Postponing Publication
What it is:
Under Section 4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, a court may order that reporting of a case (or of specific aspects of the case) be temporarily postponed. This is sometimes called a “postponement order” or “interim reporting restriction”.
When it is used:
Multiple trials of co, accused:
If co, defendants will be tried separately, the court may delay reporting of the first trial until the later one concludes, so potential jurors in the second trial are not influenced by earlier coverage.
Connected proceedings at different levels:
A postponement may be imposed if reporting on a preliminary hearing (e. g. a committal hearing in a Magistrates’ Court) would prejudice the defendant’s right to a fair trial in the Crown Court or a higher court.
Media coverage of pre, trial issues:
If sensitive or prejudicial evidence is likely to be discussed in an upcoming hearing, the judge can direct that no publication occur until a later date, often when the trial is over and any risk to a jury has passed.
Key features:
Temporary, not permanent:
Once the trial (or the relevant stage of proceedings) finishes, the restriction dissolves and the media may publish previously withheld material in full.
Strict necessity:
The judge must be persuaded that disclosure at the time would give rise to a “substantial risk” of serious prejudice to ongoing proceedings, and that no less restrictive measure (for example, redaction of prejudicial passages) would suffice.
Broad scope: A Section 4(2) order can relate to the whole case or to specific elements, such as witness statements, admission of bad character evidence, or certain documents, to the extent that immediate reporting would threaten fairness.
Practical effect:
While the restriction is in force, journalists and members of the public must not publish any material covered by the order. Breach of a Section 4(2) postponement order amounts to contempt of court, with potential penalties ranging from fines to imprisonment for those responsible, regardless of whether they are professional journalists or private individuals online.
Section 11 Contempt of Court Act 1981: Banning Specific Details
What it is:
Section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 empowers a court to make an order that banning the publication of specific details in connection with proceedings. It is essentially an anonymity order or a privacy restriction for information that the court itself has decided should be withheld from open court.
When it is used:
- Sensitive witnesses or informants: If a witness (for example, a police or agent informant) gives evidence behind screens or with voice, distortion to protect their identity, a Section 11 order can prohibit revealing their name or identifying features outside court.
- National security or undercover officers: Where exposing someone’s identity would endanger national security or the individual’s safety, the judge may decide that certain details must remain secret.
- Protection of victims in certain cases: Judges may use Section 11 alongside other provisions (for instance, to grant anonymity to a complainant in a blackmail case).
Key limitations:
- Only applies to information withheld in court: Section 11 cannot be used to suppress information that was openly stated in the courtroom. Its purpose is to allow anonymity for information that the court has already taken steps to keep confidential within the hearing itself.
- Must be justified by necessity: The court must find that disclosure outside the courtroom of that information would “represent a real and immediate risk” to the administration of justice or to the safety of an individual.
- Duration: Typically, the restriction lasts for the entire period of the proceedings and may continue thereafter if the judge considers ongoing anonymity essential (for instance, if revealing the identity of an undercover officer would compromise future operations).
Consequences of breach:
Publishing any detail that a Section 11 order protects is a contempt of court. The offender (be they an editor, reporter, or social media user) may face committal proceedings, fines, or even imprisonment. Equally, digital platforms cannot avoid responsibility: if a user publishes prohibited content, removal may be ordered, and failure to comply can lead to penal consequences.
Automatic Anonymity for Children (Under 18)
Youth Court Protection:
When defendants, victims or witnesses are under 18 and are dealt with in a Youth Court, the law confers automatic anonymity. Under Section 49 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, it is a criminal offence to publish the name or any identifying particulars of any person under 18 who is involved in Youth Court proceedings. This applies even if a journalist attends in person or views the hearing by video link; details such as the young person’s school, address or photograph are all off, limits.
Scope: Applies to the under, 18 defendant, but also extends to any victim or witness under 18 in Youth Court proceedings.
Duration: As long as the person remains under 18, their identity must be protected. Once they turn 18, the restriction no longer applies, unless the court separately orders extended anonymity in the interests of justice.
Children in Adult (Crown) Courts:
If a child (under 18) gives evidence or is a victim in an adult (Crown) Court, anonymity is not automatic but can be granted at the judge’s discretion under Section 45 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999. The court may direct that no report shall reveal anything likely to identify the child. Such orders are routinely made in cases where a minor is a complainant in a serious offence, ensuring their identities remain protected throughout.
Exceptional Lifelong Anonymity: In very sensitive cases, particularly involving sexual offences, the court may grant lifetime anonymity under Section 45A YJCEA 1999 for a child victim or witness if there is a genuine fear of intimidation or distress from publicity.
Rationale:
These protections recognise the lifelong impact public exposure can have on a child. By safeguarding their identity, the court helps to ensure that minors are not discouraged from giving evidence and are shielded from media intrusion or bullying.
Lifelong Anonymity for Victims of Sexual Offences
Under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992, any victim (complainant) of a sexual offence enjoys automatic, lifelong anonymity from the moment allegations are made, whether or not the charge leads to conviction. This prohibition covers:
Name (or any part of the name)
Address
Any description likely to lead to identification (including social media handles, photographs, or unique personal details)
Such material must not be published by any individual or organisation. This means that even a gossip site or private social media user must refrain from naming or posting pictures of the alleged victim.
The only exceptions are:
Written consent: If the complainant explicitly and voluntarily consents in writing to be identified.
Court order lifting anonymity: In very rare circumstances, for instance if the defendant’s right to a fair trial would be breached without the complainant’s identity being known, for example, where the complainant’s testimony or background is directly in issue and the jury needs access to relevant biographical details.
Failure to comply constitutes a criminal offence. Penalties may include fines or, in the case of serious or repeated breaches, more significant legal sanctions. The policy behind this rule is to encourage victims to report sexual crimes without fear of re, traumatisation or social stigma, thereby improving access to justice and protection of vulnerable individuals.
Traditional Media vs Social Media: Which Rules Apply?
Legal Obligations, Different Audiences
It is crucial to appreciate that the law does not draw a distinction between a newspaper article and a social media post when it comes to reporting restrictions. Under the Contempt of Court Act 1981, the phrase “publication” includes any written or spoken statement made available to the public, whether through print, broadcast or online. Consequently, if a private individual publishes material on Facebook, X, Instagram, TikTok or any other platform, they are equally subject to the same rules as a professional journalist.
Traditional Media
Legal and editorial infrastructure: Established news organisations generally have legal advisers or dedicated news editors who screen material for potential contempt risks. Before reporting on a case, they check whether any Section 4(2) or Section 11 orders, or automatic restrictions, apply.
Formal notices: Courts and the Attorney General’s Office issue formal notices of reporting restrictions in high, profile or complex cases. Newspapers and broadcasters normally receive these notices promptly, so they can comply.
Internal compliance: Most reputable outlets have written guidance and training sessions for journalists to ensure reporting restrictions are not breached. Violations can result in professional disciplinary action, reputational damage, fines or even contempt proceedings against editors.
Social Media Users
Lack of awareness:
Unlike professional journalists, private individuals typically lack formal legal training. They may not appreciate that a simple post or retweet, even if intended innocently, can constitute “publication” of restricted material and thus be contempt.
Rapid, viral spread: A single social media post can be shared thousands of times within minutes. If that post contains prohibited content (for example, the name of a juvenile defendant or the identity of a sexual, offence complainant), the harm may be irreversible even before the author realises the mistake.
Enforcement challenges: While courts do not have direct control over social media platforms, they can order removal of offending posts and may initiate contempt proceedings against individuals who breach restrictions. There have been instances where social media users were fined and ordered to remove material for identifying a protected individual.
Education and Warning Campaigns
Recognising the problem of ignorance among social media users, the Attorney General’s Office has, at various times, run public awareness campaigns (such as “Think Before You Post”) to emphasise that discussing active criminal proceedings online can lead to contempt of court charges. The guidance typically reminds the public that:
Prejudging guilt is unlawful: Expressing firm views about the guilt or innocence of an individual on an ongoing case can be seen as contempt if it risks influencing jurors.
Identifying protected persons is illegal: Naming or providing identifying details about children or sexual, offence victims is a criminal offence, regardless of whether the publisher is a professional journalist.
Jury social media use is monitored: Courts frequently warn jurors not to search the internet or social media for information about a case or discuss it online. Jurors who disregard such warnings can be held in contempt or removed.
By contrast, traditional media are more accustomed to legal notices. An editor receiving a Section 4(2) order at 2 p. m. will block out the relevant content from publication until the order is lifted, whereas a private individual might not even realise an order exists. The onus is on every member of the public, even casual social media users, to educate themselves about the basics of reporting restrictions and to refrain from publishing material that could prejudice a trial or identify a protected person.
Consequences of Breaching Reporting Restrictions
Breaching a reporting restriction, whether as a journalist or as a private individual online, carries serious consequences:
Contempt of Court Proceedings
Anyone who knowingly or inadvertently publishes restricted information risks being held in contempt of court.
Contempt is punishable by up to two years’ imprisonment or an unlimited fine. In practice, custodial sentences for contempt are relatively rare, but significant fines or suspended sentences can be imposed, especially where a breach is deliberate or persistent.
Criminal Offences (Sexual‐Offence Victim Anonymity)
Name, photograph or identifying detail of a sexual−offence complainant or suspect is automatically prohibited. Breach of this anonymity is a standalone criminal offence, punishable by a fine.
Even if a media outlet or social media user believes the victim has “no objection, ” it is not lawful to publish identifying information without formal written consent or a specific court order lifting anonymity.
Trial Disruption and Retrial
If prejudicial material becomes widespread, a judge may discharge the jury. This can lead to a mistrial and the need for a retrial, with serious repercussions:
Increased anxiety for victims, witnesses and the defendant.
- Additional expense for the Crown Prosecution Service and the taxpayer.
- Potential loss of crucial witness evidence or memories if the case is delayed.
- Removal Orders and Injunctions
- Courts can order social media companies to remove offending posts or accounts spreading restricted information. Failure by the platform or user to comply with such an order can lead to further contempt proceedings and penalties.
Reputational Damage and Civil Claims
While contempt proceedings are the primary route, unlawful publication of private or confidential information can also give rise to civil claims:
Privacy or data protection actions if personal data is published without lawful basis.
Defamation claims if the restricted material includes unsubstantiated allegations or false statements about a person’s character or conduct.
In short, ignorance of these restrictions is no defence. All publishers, large or small, professional or private, must err on the side of caution by checking whether a reporting restriction is in place before posting or airing material about an active criminal case.
Practical Advice for Media and Individuals
Check for Notices at Court: Whenever covering a hearing, verify at the outset whether any Section 4(2) or Section 11 orders exist. Bailiff officers typically display or distribute official lists of current reporting restrictions in the court building.
Seek Legal Advice if Unsure: Journalists or individuals unsure whether a piece of information is restricted should consult a media lawyer or contact the court clerk for guidance before publication.
Even a short delay to clarify legal status can prevent serious repercussions.
Use Generic Descriptors Where Necessary: If identifying details of a young person or sexual offence victim are off, limits, refer to them in neutral terms (for example, “the 16, year, old complainant” or “a female minor”). After the trial concludes, if anonymity ceases, one can update earlier reports or publish fuller accounts.
Educate Employees and Followers: News organisations should provide regular training sessions for reporters, sub, editors and social media teams on current reporting restrictions. Private groups, community forums or organisations might also circulate reminders to their members, especially in high, profile or sensitive cases.
Monitor Social Media for Unauthorised Disclosures: Editors may assign staff to monitor Twitter, Facebook and other platforms for any leaks or commentary that could breach restrictions. If a breach is detected, request immediate removal and issue a correction or apology.
“Think Before You Post”: Individuals should pause before posting or retweeting anything about a live criminal case. Even linking to a published article that contains restricted material can amount to republication. If in doubt, refrain from posting until the case is concluded or until you have obtained confirmation that no restriction applies.
Reporting From the Point of Charge
No General Ban – But Risk of Prejudicial Reporting Increases
There is no automatic reporting restriction that arises solely because a suspect has been charged. However, once a person is charged, the risk of media publications prejudicing a future trial becomes much more acute. From this point onwards, publishers must take great care to avoid:
- Publishing prior convictions or bad character evidence
- Speculating on guilt
- Broadcasting inflammatory or emotive commentary
- Disclosing inadmissible or prejudicial material
This is because section 2(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 deems proceedings to be “active” from the point of charge, meaning that strict liability contempt can apply.
⚖️ Contempt of Court Act 1981, s.2(2): “A criminal proceeding becomes active when a person is arrested, a warrant for arrest is issued, or a summons or charge has been issued.”
Strict Liability Rule Applies
Under the strict liability rule in the 1981 Act:
- Any publication (including social media posts) that creates a substantial risk of serious prejudice or impediment to those proceedings may amount to contempt of court.
- This applies regardless of intent — i.e., a publisher need not have intended to influence the trial.
- The rule remains in place until the conclusion of the trial, including sentencing if relevant.
So while there is no prohibition on reporting the fact of the charge, or basic details (name, age, alleged offence, etc.), publishers must avoid anything that could influence a jury or interfere with justice.
Attorney General’s Guidance
The Attorney General’s Office has emphasised that once proceedings are “active,” media outlets must not publish:
- Material about previous allegations, whether proven or not
- Commentary that assumes guilt
- References to bail conditions, mental health history, or interviews under caution (unless these form part of the prosecution’s case at trial)
This is reinforced by CPS media guidelines and professional codes for journalists (e.g. IPSO and Ofcom codes), but the legal duty arises under the Contempt of Court Act 1981.
Injunctions and Orders Can Still Be Sought After Charge
If a particular case is unusually sensitive — for example, involving a high-profile defendant or multiple trials — the prosecution or defence may seek a Section 4(2) postponement order after charge, in anticipation of the risk that trial reporting could influence a subsequent trial. This would impose a formal reporting restriction beyond the general contempt rules.
Summary
| Legal Effect | Triggered on Charge? | Legal Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Strict liability contempt rules | ✅ Yes – proceedings are “active” | Contempt of Court Act 1981, s.2(2) |
| Automatic anonymity for sexual offence complainants | ✅ Yes – from allegation | Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 |
| Anonymity under s.49 (Youth Court) | ✅ If child is charged in Youth Court | Children and Young Persons Act 1933 |
| Postponement or anonymity orders | ❌ Only on court order | Contempt of Court Act 1981, s.4(2) or s.11 |
| General reporting ban | ❌ No – but subject to contempt limits | Common law + Contempt of Court Act 1981 |
Conclusion
Breaching reporting restrictions risks serious outcomes: contempt of court proceedings with penalties, potential retrials, and lasting harm to victims or defendants. Respecting these safeguards promotes confidence in the criminal justice system, ensuring that verdicts are reached solely on the evidence and law, without undue outside influence. In an age when information travels instantly across platforms and borders, a careful and informed approach is essential: “Think before you post, ” check for court notices, and seek legal clarification if uncertain. By doing so, the media and the public contribute to a fairer, more transparent justice system, one in which the presumption of innocence and the protection of vulnerable individuals remain paramount.
If you are a journalist, editor, publisher or individual concerned about reporting restrictions in a criminal case whether in traditional media or online we can help.
Carruthers Law acts swiftly and discreetly to advise on the risks of contempt of court, anonymity orders and related defamation concerns.
Contact us today on 0151 541 2040 or email info@carruthers-law.co.uk for a confidential discussion.