Source · Select Committees · Justice Committee
Recommendation 22
22
Accepted
Paragraph: 82
Reporting restrictions show inconsistency in notification and ineffective compliance on social media
Conclusion
Reporting restrictions play a key role in securing the fairness of the justice system. However, it is clear that there is inconsistency in the courts’ approach to notifying the media when restrictions are in place, and they are often not effective at ensuring compliance, particularly on social media. This is an important example of where the modernisation of the infrastructure of open justice is long overdue
Government Response Summary
The government acknowledges inconsistency in courts' approach to reporting restrictions and commits to embedding greater consistency and improving service to the media. They highlight updated AGO guidance on contempt of court referrals and bespoke training for HMCTS operational staff and court ushers as measures to address these issues.
Paragraph Reference:
82
Government Response
Accepted
HM Government
Accepted
Sometimes automatic (via legislation) or discretionary reporting restrictions (decided by the judge) must be put in place. Automatic reporting restrictions are in addition to the media’s own responsibility for compliance with the Contempt of Court Act 1981 (which includes specific defences to enable fair, accurate, contemporaneous court reports, and discussion of public affairs or other matters of general public interest). With discretionary reporting restrictions, the Criminal Procedure Rules require the media to be given advanced notification of any application for reporting restrictions by the applicant, and an opportunity to make representations about discretionary reporting restrictions. Parties seeking reporting restriction orders should put them in writing as soon as possible and the media should be put on notice as to the existence and terms of the order. Once an order is in place, HMCTS relays this information to the media through various channels (such as notices in press rooms and entries on court lists) which are set out in the published guidance for court and tribunal staff. HMCTS are looking at making processes for notifying restrictions more consistent and will keep its guidance under review. It was last updated in September 2022. It is important to remember that, even with reporting restrictions in place, information about a case or hearing can still be given to the media. As outlined, it is the media’s responsibility to ensure that what is published conforms to their legal obligations. The AGO recently ran the ‘Think Before You Post’ PLE campaign, complete with examples of social media posts which could prejudice court proceedings. Following on from the success of this campaign, the AGO has updated its guidance on the Law Officers’ approach to contempt of court referrals. The new guidance provides greater clarity regarding referrals to their office. When reviewing possible contempt of court issues, the Law Officers act independently of Government and in their roles as Guardian of the Public Interest. HMCTS recognises that practice can, at times, be inconsistent. As ever, where issues are brought to HMCTS’ attention, it works hard to swiftly resolve these. HMCTS is committed to embedding greater consistency in its practices and continuously improving the service it provides to the media in their day-to-day dealings with courts and tribunals. HMCTS has developed bespoke training for its operational staff and mandated that relevant teams familiarise themselves with HMCTS media guidance as part of their development and capability training. Supporting the media is also a standard element of the training provided to court ushers.