Reporting restrictions explained: which parts of a court case make the news – and why

Most civil and criminal court hearings in the UK are open to the public and the media. This transparency is aimed at helping ensure fair trials as well as public understanding of – and trust in – the justice system.

But there are times when exceptions are made: to protect the anonymity of minors, for example, or the victims of certain crimes. This came into the spotlight last month, when a British court order limited a New Yorker article about the criminal trial of Lucy Letby, a nurse convicted of killing seven babies.

What are court reporting restrictions?

In the UK, the information that is allowed to be made public about criminal cases is extremely limited from the moment a person is charged with the crime. This is to avoid prejudicing a trial by influencing how jury members think about the case. The reasoning is that jurors should base their decision solely on what has happened inside the courtroom.

A court can further restrict these standard reporting restrictions (or exclude members of the public from parts of a trial entirely) for several reasons, including to protect the identity of people involved.

There are often no reporting restrictions on civil trials, though a judge can impose them if they see the need.

In the family courts, although the press can attend private hearings, it has been historically not allowed to report on them (though this is now changing following a recent pilot programme).

If the court has ordered limited or no access to hearings for the public and the media, anyone going against it could face serious fines or jail time.

What is contempt of court?

Contempt of court doesn’t just apply to the media. In common law (the legal system used in several countries including the UK and the US), “contempt of court” is the term used to describe any conduct that interferes with the course of justice. This could mean disrupting a hearing or disobeying an order to protect someone’s anonymity. In the UK, this can lead to a jail sentence of up to two years.

Recent cases

In May 2024, the New Yorker blocked readers in the UK from accessing its article about the trial of Lucy Letby. This was decided to avoid contempt of a local court order restricting media coverage of the case. Although the article was published after Letby’s conviction, it raised questions about the criminal case ahead of a retrial of an outstanding charge.

A similar instance occurred at the New York Times 18 years ago, when UK readers were blocked from reading an online article covering an alleged terrorist bomb plot involving liquid explosives being smuggled onto various transatlantic flights from London. This was also done for fear of breaching UK contempt laws.

In 2012, the Daily Mail and Daily Mirror were fined for breaching contempt of court laws in their coverage of the conviction of Levi Bellfield for the murder and abduction of Milly Dowler. The articles, published while the jury was still considering a separate charge, were ruled to contain information and allegations about Bellfield that went beyond what had been said in court.

A year earlier, the Sun and the Daily Mail had been found guilty of contempt for pictures they published during a murder trial, showing the defendant with a gun, which were ruled to have risked influencing the jury.

In 2021, a blogger and former diplomat was sentenced to eight months in jail for “abhorrent” contempt of court for a series of blogs he wrote during the trial of politician Alex Salmond over sexual assault allegations. A judge ruled that the articles had deliberately risked identifying of four women involved in the trial of Scotland's former first minister, who was acquitted of all charges.

Can media organisations challenge restrictions?

Media organisations can challenge court reporting restrictions if they think they’re not necessary or reasonable. Restrictions can sometimes raise questions around freedom of speech and the very concept of open justice.

The UK parliament has recognised the importance of media coverage of legal proceedings by protecting news organisations from liability for contempt of court and defamation as long as they report fairly and accurately.

Any reporting restrictions on court proceedings may be appealed and when applied, they must fulfil a legitimate aim, be necessary, proportionate and convincingly established. However, the court may not reverse a restrictive court order when asked to, unless convinced that it’s at the interest of justice to do so.

Media organisations could also use other ways to stand up for their right to report. Last year, the attorney general warned the media about reporting on sexual assault allegations against Russell Brand. Despite the advisory noting that publishing this material could amount to contempt of court, the Times (which helped break the story) defended its coverage claiming that there was no active legal proceedings at the time of publication. Liability contempt under the UK law applies only to active cases, generally from the point of arrest.

Following the publication of the New Yorker article on Letby’s case, MP David Davis raised the issue in parliament, claiming that the court order in place may be “in defiance of open justice.”

Reporters covering the case have also raised concerns about the restrictions throughout the trial.The Sunday Times and The Times’ Northern editor David Collins told Press Gazette the Letby case had been “an incredibly complex trial to report”, both because it was medical and because of the tight reporting restrictions that were put on the media. He mentioned the trial “was extremely difficult for people to follow,” noting that “[…] it plays into the public’s understanding that justice is being done.”

How reporting restrictions apply in the digital age?

In a digital world where online publishing has become the norm, contempt of court has taken on new dimensions. The New Yorker article raised questions among British media about whether the UK law resulted in the unequal treatment of national and international publications.

A few years ago the attorney general launched a campaign to combat contempt of court on social media. It clarified the scenarios in which posting about a legal case or upcoming trial on social media could also amount to contempt of court.

But it seems that there are challenges beyond social media. While the New Yorker blocked the story from appearing online in Britain for example, subscribers to its print version around the world received the exact same copy including the article in question. The article can also be accessed via the magazine’s mobile app, while anyone can manage to read the article in full using a VPN or by accessing an archival link of the story.

Given that the UK law is dating back to 1981, there are questions about its application in the digital age. To catch up, the contempt of court laws when it comes to court reporting are set to be reviewed to better reflect the complexities of the digital age.