Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
The Law Commission’s recommendation to expand what police may publish about a suspect at the moment of arrest marks a notable shift in how early-stage criminal information could be handled in England and Wales.
The development highlights why the point at which proceedings become “active” carries real legal consequences for reporting, how contempt safeguards operate in practice, and what the change would mean for transparency and fair trial rights.
The Commission’s suggestion to shift “active” status from arrest to charge clarifies when the strict liability rule begins to apply. Before charge, factual information—such as age or nationality—generally presents low risk because a jury has not yet been formed and proceedings are not underway.
Once a charge is filed, the long-standing legal test continues to govern: a publication may be contempt if it creates a substantial risk that a future trial will be seriously impeded or prejudiced. That threshold is high, but it is designed to protect the integrity of evidence and the independence of the jury.
The adjustment does not loosen the law; it clarifies when obligations start and aims to create more consistent practice among police, courts and the media.
Contempt law is concerned with preventing real-world interference with justice. Three core risks guide enforcement:
Impact on jurors
Prejudicial reporting—especially content framed as guilt—can compromise impartiality.
Influence on witnesses
Public commentary may unintentionally shape memory or perception of events.
Interference with legal processes
Publishing restricted details or breaching court orders can undermine investigations or ongoing proceedings.
The law does not prohibit reporting about criminal cases. It restricts content that could materially affect fairness, and only at specific procedural stages.
Once a suspect is charged, the court process moves through a predictable sequence:
The point where proceedings become active and contempt restrictions tighten.
A procedural hearing dealing mainly with identity, representation, and bail. Reporting must remain factual.
Courts address disclosure, admissibility and case preparation. Commentary about evidence carries greater risk during this stage.
Jury selection and evidence presentation begin. This is the period when prejudicial publication is most likely to draw contempt action.
Understanding these stages helps explain why risk increases over time and why clarity at the point of arrest can reduce misinformation early on.
Four principles underpin the balance between information-sharing and fair trial protections:
Defendants are treated as not guilty until the prosecution proves otherwise.
Court processes remain transparent unless a lawful restriction applies.
Reporting is permitted, subject to limits that protect the justice process.
Courts must safeguard the impartiality of juries and the reliability of evidence.
Releasing general, non-prejudicial details at arrest sits within these principles when managed responsibly.
The law allows factual, non-prejudicial details if they do not pose a substantial risk.
It is not. Public posts are treated as publications for the purposes of contempt.
The law focuses on real and substantial risk, not on criticism alone.
The risk of prejudice is closely tied to when information is published. Courts assessing contempt consistently consider timing as a key factor:
Before charge, jurors do not exist and proceedings have not begun, reducing the likelihood of serious prejudice.
A brief factual statement is rarely problematic, but widespread emotive content shared repeatedly can elevate risk.
Once a trial date is set and jurors are on the horizon, safeguards must be stronger to preserve integrity.
This emphasis on timing explains why the Commission proposes clearer boundaries for the pre-charge stage and why public authorities have called for consistency.
If the government adopts these recommendations, police forces, public bodies and journalists will operate within a clearer legal framework that defines what can safely be released at arrest. The overarching goal remains the same: ensuring trials are fair, transparent, and protected from undue external influence while supporting accurate public information.
Does the proposal allow naming suspects before charge?
It clarifies that naming is not automatically contempt, but any decision still requires a context-based assessment of risk.
Can ordinary social media users be liable for contempt?
Yes. Public posts fall within the scope of contempt law.
Do these recommendations change trial procedure?
No. They address publication risk—not the structure of criminal proceedings.
Is nationality or age always safe to release?
These are usually low-risk details, but the assessment always depends on the circumstances of a specific case.
