Law Commission Proposes Overhaul of Contempt Rules to Address Digital Age Challenges

More information about suspects could be published at the time of arrest under new recommendations put forward in a comprehensive review of contempt of court laws in England and Wales.

The Law Commission, which published its findings on Tuesday, suggests that details such as a suspect’s name, age, nationality, ethnicity, religion, or immigration status “will generally not create risk” to fair trial proceedings. However, the commission emphasized that publishable information would still depend on individual case circumstances.

In a significant shift, the recommendations propose that criminal proceedings would become “active” only when a person is charged, rather than at the point of arrest. Once proceedings reach active status, publications would be deemed in contempt if they create a “substantial risk” that justice and a fair trial will be “seriously impeded or prejudiced.”

The review was prompted by growing concerns that contempt laws have “struggled to keep pace with the rise in online communications and social media,” which have fundamentally transformed how information spreads. The existing legal framework was designed for an era before instantaneous digital communication and viral misinformation.

Public attention on contempt laws intensified following the Southport attack in July 2024, which resulted in the murders of three young children: Elsie Dot Stancombe (7), Alice da Silva Aguiar (9), and Bebe King (6). In the aftermath, significant public disorder erupted across the UK, leading to hundreds of prosecutions. The perpetrator, Axel Rudakubana (18), was later sentenced to a minimum of 52 years.

Merseyside police faced criticism for not disclosing Rudakubana’s ethnicity upon arrest. Within hours, false information spread online claiming the suspect was a 17-year-old asylum seeker who had recently entered the country by boat. The Law Commission acknowledged that the subsequent disorder may have been indirectly influenced by contempt laws that restricted what authorities could disclose.

“In constraining what information public authorities could disclose in relation to the defendant, contempt law helped to create an information vacuum into which misinformation, disinformation and counter-narratives could spread unchecked,” the commission stated.

The report highlighted a “pressing need for clarity” on what can be published when proceedings are active, a concern “particularly acutely” felt by public authorities. It suggested that “some public statements in high-profile cases in recent years” indicate a lack of understanding about contempt law.

The commission’s approach aligns with interim guidance issued by the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the College of Policing in August, which advised police forces to share suspects’ ethnicity and nationality with the public following accusations that authorities were covering up offenses committed by asylum seekers.

By providing guidance on what information is generally safe to publish, the commission aims to deliver “clarity and consistency” for both police and media, while emphasizing that legal risks must still be assessed within context. Currently, an estimated 100 people receive prison sentences annually for contempt of court violations.

The commission plans to publish Part Two of its report in 2026, covering powers, procedure, sanctions, costs, and appeals. The government will ultimately decide which recommendations to implement.

Professor Penney Lewis, Commissioner for Criminal Law, explained that the review uncovered “significant problems with coherence, consistency and clarity across civil, criminal and family courts.” She stated that the proposed reforms would “make contempt law fairer and more predictable” and that “the public, media and court participants will benefit from clearer, more consistent laws fit for the modern age.”

The News Media Association expressed support for the commission’s work. Sayra Tekin, the association’s director of legal, emphasized that “any reform must strengthen and enhance the vital principle of open justice, which underpins public confidence in our judicial system.” Tekin added that ensuring “timely, reliable access to information for journalists” remains essential for court reporting that complies with the law.