The Law Commission has proposed changes to the law of contempt which was scrutinised during the Southport stabbings
Floral tributes on the junction of Tithebarn Road and Hart Street in Southport, near the scene where three children were fatally stabbed at a Taylor Swift-themed holiday club(Image: James Speakman/PA Wire)
Courts will have clearer powers to protect trials after becoming “fragmented and unclear in the modern communications age,” under new recommendations by the Law Commission. The independent body that reviews English and Welsh law has provided a new framework to improve fairness and consistency in a bid to modernise contempt of court.
The framework follows a renewed focus on liability for contempt of court – the law which protects the administration of justice – following the Southport stabbings. Axel Rudakubana, then 17, murdered three girls and attempted to kill 10 more when he targeted a Taylor Swift-themed dance party on July 29, 2024.
Disorder unfolded across the UK in the following days fuelled by speculation about the identity of Rudakubana. Merseyside Police’s now former chief constable, Serena Kennedy, said she wanted to say more about Rudakubana but was “constrained” by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) due to fears of unfairly influencing the trial. Rudakubana was jailed for a minimum of 52 years in January after he pleaded guilty to the offences.
The new framework proposes four distinct categories of contempt, replacing the “confusing distinction” between civil and criminal contempt. Courts will be able to act when people disrupt proceedings, breach a court order, publish material that risks seriously prejudicing a trial when proceedings are active, or act to deliberately interfere with the administration of justice.
The Law Commission’s recommendations follow a review of contempt laws, which have struggled to keep pace with the rise of online communications and social media.
When reporting on criminal cases:
The framework balances protecting fair trials with safeguarding freedom of expression. It sets clearer thresholds for when publication interferes with justice.Criminal proceedings will be considered “active” from charge rather than arrest. This provides greater clarity for publishers who wish to report on criminal cases, whilst protecting defendants’ fair trial rights.When proceedings are active then the law will remain as it has been: the test is whether a publication creates a substantial risk that the course of justice in the proceedings in question will be seriously impeded or prejudiced. The Law Commission’s view is that publishing details like a suspect’s name, age, nationality, ethnicity, religion or immigration status will generally not create that risk. However, there are no categories of information that can always be published – what can be published will depend on the circumstances in any case. Publishers must still assess whether material risks seriously prejudicing proceedings.
The four forms of contempt liability recommended are:
General contempt – Where the person’s conduct interfered with the administration of justice in a non-trivial way, or created a substantial risk of a non-trivial interference with the administration of justice, and the person intended to interfere with the administration of justice in a non-trivial way.
Contempt by breach of court order or undertaking where the person breached an order or undertaking, and the person was aware that a breach would be a contempt.
Contempt by publication while proceedings are active where the person published material which creates a substantial risk that the course of justice in active proceedings will be seriously impeded or prejudiced, and the person was aware of a risk that proceedings were active.
Contempt by disrupting proceedings where the person engaged in abusive, threatening, or disorderly behaviour that resulted in the disruption of proceedings, and the person was aware that legal proceedings were taking place.
Professor Penney Lewis, the commissioner for criminal law, 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.
“We’ve created a clearer framework with four distinct contempt forms, replacing the outdated civil-criminal distinction. These reforms make contempt law fairer and more predictable. Given contempt sanctions can include imprisonment, we’ve carefully considered appropriate fault thresholds for different conduct types. The public, media and court participants will benefit from clearer, more consistent laws fit for the modern age.”
