As a general rule, you can publish anything seen or heard in open court, provided this is done responsibly and subject to any reporting restrictions which may apply to the case – including automatic restrictions. The fundamental principle of open justice means court proceedings are usually held in public, and fair, accurate and contemporaneous reporting of proceedings should be allowed. Reports meeting these conditions are protected by absolute privilege which provides legal protection against defamation claims. Open justice is recognised by courts as an important principle because it ensures public confidence in and understanding of the justice system and legal processes. Courts may only exclude the press from hearings, or restrict reporting of them, if it is considered strictly necessary. Court staff may ask to see a press card or other verification which shows you are an accredited journalist – see HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) guidance to staff on supporting media access to courts for details: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/guidance-to-staff-on-supporting-media-access-to-courts-and-tribunals/hmcts-media-guidance-accessible-version

While the open justice principle provides news outlets with the freedom to report on anything heard in open court, there are statutory limits on what can be reported in some cases, and courts may impose additional reporting restrictions if they are considered necessary “in the interests of justice”. The main reasons courts may impose restrictions are to avoid prejudicing the outcome of a trial and ensure it is fair, in the interests of national security, or to protect vulnerable parties/witnesses.

Some restrictions apply automatically to children and victims of certain offences, including sexual offences (see below).

The Contempt of Court Act 1981 makes it a ‘strict liability’ offence – i.e. one where your intention in reporting information from a court case is not a relevant factor to whether you have breached the law – to publish material which creates a ‘substantial risk of serious prejudice’ to active criminal proceedings. For example, a report which includes a defendant’s previous convictions, or gives the impression a defendant is guilty, is likely to create a substantial risk of serious prejudice and should be avoided. Journalists should also not publish information during a trial that is not heard by jurors. Ultimately, a jury should only base their decision on the information they heard within the courtroom and should not be influenced by media reporting where it contains prejudicial information.

Journalists can report on proceedings, and proceedings become ‘active’ when a person is arrested, an arrest warrant or summons is issued, or a person is charged (Section 2(2) of the Act – see Schedule 1 for details https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/49/schedule/1). Publishers should not directly or indirectly identify any people under criminal investigation before they have been charged, unless the police have released someone’s name or other identifying information or there is a strong public interest exception (Sub-Clause 6.3 – Justice). This is considered good practice, as a means of protecting the suspect’s presumption of innocence until proven guilty and to prevent them from being vilified as criminals before any potential criminal conviction, particularly if police later decide not to charge the suspect. In addition to the contempt risk, naming a suspect could also result in a civil claim from them (i.e. for misuse of private information, or defamation if a suspect considers their reputation has been harmed). This advice is underpinned by a Supreme Court ruling in the case of ZXC v Bloomberg [https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2020-0122].

The Law Commission has recommended moving the point at which proceedings become active from when a suspect is arrested to when they are charged – so watch this space, when proceedings are considered to be active may change in the future.

Proceedings cease to be active when either the arrested person is released without charge, no arrest is made within 12 months of a warrant being issued, the case is discontinued or the defendant is either acquitted, sentenced or found unfit to be tried or to plead, or a charge is ordered to lie on the court file. In practice, it is generally safe to publish material that could be considered prejudicial at the point a person pleads guilty or is convicted, as judges who will deal with the matter thereafter are considered too experienced to be influenced by media coverage unlike juries made up of lay people.

Publishers found in contempt of court under the 1981 Act can be given a substantial fine or even a prison sentence in serious cases. Other types of contempt exist under common law and other statutes, including those which prohibit the use of audio recording in courtrooms, the taking of photographs of those concerned in proceedings within the court’s precincts and seeking to discover information from a jury’s confidential deliberations.

Yes, while pre-trial hearings are held in public, there are restrictions on the publication of certain information relating to these hearings to avoid prejudicing the trial. Reporting on a criminal suspect’s first appearance at a Magistrates’ Court (or allocation and sending hearing, where a serious offence is referred to the Crown Court) is restricted by section 52A of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to limited details including the name, age, address and occupation of the accused and a summary of the offences they are charged with. The full list of what is permitted is here (subsection 7): https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/37/section/52A.

Other pre-trial hearings in Magistrates’ Courts are covered by Section 8C of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980, which states that no report of matters relating to the proceedings may be published, aside from certain details such as the fact that a hearing took place and the outcome (for example whether bail was granted or refused). Other information, such as the evidence and arguments raised, cannot be reported at the pre-trial stage. This is because such information, if published, could potentially create a substantial risk of prejudice to a future criminal trial. Similar restrictions apply to pre-trial hearings in the Crown Court.

No, reporting an indication to plead guilty could pose a significant risk of contempt if a defendant then changes their mind before entering a formal plea and the case goes to trial, and may even lead to a defamation claim if they are then acquitted. Therefore, it is advised not to report an indication until a formal plea is entered.

NOTE: Highly experienced court reporters will occasionally report a defendant’s indication to plea if they are sure it is unequivocal, but great care is taken and such reports must make clear it is only an indication and not a formal plea. You must accurately reflect the circumstances of any plea in your reporting, in accordance with Clause 1 – Accuracy of the Standards Code.

Yes, there is no legal restriction on reporting on withdrawn charges as these will be a matter of public record. However, care should be taken not to imply guilt as this could pose a defamation risk. In order to discharge your obligations under Clause 1 of the Impress Code – Accuracy, it will be important to clarify where any charges have been withdrawn.

Reporters are responsible for checking with the court whether any additional restrictions apply in a case. Reporting restrictions can be imposed in any type of case, criminal or civil, including inquests and tribunals. Criminal Procedure Rules expressly require courts in England and Wales to notify journalists in advance when making an application for a discretionary reporting restriction, so news organisations have an opportunity to oppose reporting restrictions being imposed in a timely manner. However, this is not always adhered to and there is no centralised way of journalists being notified of such an application for all jurisdictions. HMCTS guidance to staff on supporting media access to courts gives details of how to contact courts [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/guidance-to-staff-on-supporting-media-access-to-courts-and-tribunals/hmcts-media-guidance-accessible-version].

Once an order has been made, court staff are generally responsible for producing notices which reflect its terms, including the reason for the decision and the legal basis, what or who is affected, and the duration of the order. If you have any doubts about whether a restriction has been imposed or what it covers, it is advisable to contact court staff to obtain a copy of the order. Fuller information about reporting restrictions in the criminal courts is set out in useful guidance issued by the Judicial College, and supported by the News Media Association, Society of Editors and the Media Lawyers’ Association [https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Reporting-Restrictions-in-the-Criminal-Courts-July-2023.pdf].

Yes, journalists and media organisations regularly challenge reporting restrictions imposed by courts where they consider their imposition is contrary to the public interest or where the restriction has been made in error. Any departure from the open justice principle must be justified, proportionate, and no more than necessary for the purpose of the restriction itself. If you consider that a restriction is inappropriate and incompatible with the principle of open justice/freedom of expression – perhaps for example where fiercely protective defence counsel requests anonymity for a client, or a prosecutor seeks to protect a witness without justification – then you can challenge this. Chapter 16 of McNae’s Essential Law – ‘Challenging in the Courts’ – includes examples of media challenges and signposts various resources. However, challenging a restriction can prove to be difficult and time-consuming, and potentially costly too if it involves a formal process, so independent legal advice may be necessary to navigate the process if you wish to challenge a restriction.

To challenge a reporting restriction:

1. Obtain a copy of the restriction order from the court. Once you have done so, you will need to scrutinise the order and understand the legal basis for the restriction. This is key, as the challenge to a reporting restriction will directly concern the precise legal basis of the restriction itself and whether it was appropriate and/or lawful for the judge or magistrates to impose the restriction.

2. Consider whether it may be difficult to challenge the restriction, or if it should not be challenged on ethical grounds (e.g. where a restriction has been granted to protect the identity of a child or vulnerable adult).

3. Consider the timing of your challenge. Acting quickly by challenging an application for a restriction order before it has been granted will likely prove more effective than reversing a restriction order. Under Part 6 of the Criminal Procedure Rules, media organisations should apply ‘as soon as reasonably practicable’ after being notified to oppose a restriction, or to vary or remove an order that has already been made.

There is generally no issue with reporting on or taking photographs of police activity or a crime scene. However, you should consider the potential legal risk there may be if criminal proceedings are active. There is strict liability for publishing material that causes a substantial risk of serious prejudice to active criminal proceedings. You should also consider any potential risk of identifying victims of sexual offences or children (Clauses 6.2 and 6.4 – Justice and see below), as well as any privacy or defamation risks. Therefore, care should be taken, and it may be necessary to have an audit trail to show such issues have been considered before publication (see Impress guidance re audit trails https://www.impressorg.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Impress-Standards-Code.pdf). It will be crucial to evaluate the risk of publishing information or photos of the crime scene and to decide whether it may be necessary to remove such details as street names or house numbers for instance, as these could potentially risk jigsaw identification of victims. If you believe there could be a risk, it is advisable to contact police for a statement. However, often where there is an increased risk of prejudice in news reporting, police may release a statement or contact media outlets to inform them of this.

In addition to the legal risk, you should also consider the ethical implications of publishing photographs at a police incident scene where a traumatic event may have occurred, particularly where you may risk identifying the victims involved. In such circumstances, you should balance the public interest in publishing the information against the risk of exacerbating distress, grief or trauma for not only readers but crucially the family members of any potential victims involved in the event (See Clause 7.2(c) – Privacy).

Great care should be taken when publishing any information about a case where proceedings are active because of the contempt risk. Material can only be published which does not pose a substantial risk of serious prejudice to the active court proceedings. However, if you suspect that the information you have uncovered could directly affect the administration of justice or a defendant’s right to a fair trial in any way, then it should not be published until proceedings are concluded. If considered appropriate, you may also wish to bring the information to the attention of the court.

There is no broad public interest defence to contempt of court under the 1981 Act and therefore it is not relevant if you believe any new information you have uncovered is in the public interest – it could not be safely published about an active court case.

Depending on your case, you may ask for an agreement to change behaviour, an apology, a form of compensation or all of the above.  

It is important to be aware of any material you intend to publish that might risk prejudicing the outcome of a trial, even where no discretionary reporting restrictions are in place. Clause 6.1 of the Code explains that the inclusion of a defendant’s past convictions or other evidence that would be typically excluded at trial could risk prejudicing proceedings.

In a case where a defendant has pleaded guilty to one offence and no others, the jury hearing the trial in relation to the remaining offences must make their decision based on the evidence they hear in that trial and not be influenced by the defendant’s previous admission of guilt. The individual is entitled to a right to a fair trial and if it is found that there is a substantial risk of prejudicing proceedings through publication of a previous guilty plea, then this could potentially result in contempt of court. Therefore, you must make a careful assessment of this risk, and if necessary, conduct any necessary inquiries with court staff for further information on this risk.

Courts will often impose an order under Section 4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 which postpones the reporting of proceedings until a point where fair and accurate reporting does not create a significant risk of prejudice, such as upon conviction. This type of order could be imposed in the circumstances described above or, for example, where there are multiple defendants being tried in a series of linked trials.

Yes, there are various rules which give children and young people anonymity in court proceedings to shield them from publicity. In youth courts, all those under 18 involved in a case – including defendants, alleged victims and witnesses – are automatically entitled to anonymity under section 49 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. Other legal restrictions apply to children in other courts, such as family courts (see below). Clause 6.2 of the Impress Standards Code, says publishers must not directly or indirectly identify persons under the age of 18 who are or have been involved in criminal, immigration and asylum, or family proceedings, except as permitted by law. This clause applies to all stages of proceedings, including pre-charge and investigation stages.

In rare cases, persons under 18 can be tried and sentenced in an adult court (Magistrates’ or Crown Court). The seriousness of the offence will determine in which court the matter will be heard. Crimes such as theft, arson and assault may be tried in the Magistrates’ Court, whereas more serious/grave crimes such as murder or sexual offences may be tried in the Crown Court.

Unlike the Youth Court, where automatic reporting restrictions apply, such restrictions do not apply where a child appears in an adult court. In this case, the court would have to make a discretionary reporting restriction under section 45 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence (YJCE) Act 1999 if they judge it to be necessary in the interests of protecting the welfare of the child in question.

As stated above, you must check with the court to find out if reporting restrictions are in place – this is especially important where a defendant is under 18. Journalists will sometimes challenge reporting restrictions imposed to protect the identities of children and young people who have committed serious offences, and judges or magistrates will decide whether it is in the public interest for the restrictions to be lifted, enabling the press to identify them. Reporters can also apply to lift automatic Section 49 restrictions in the Youth Court.

Even if revealing the identity of a child under the age of 18 is permitted by law, you should carefully consider whether to do so is necessary for your audience’s understanding of the story. Our Code clause on Children gives you a good indication of factors to consider when reporting on children, including their safety and wellbeing.

No, where the Magistrates’ Court has imposed a discretionary reporting restriction in relation to the naming of a youth defendant, this must be strictly adhered to and the defendant being identified in separate proceedings does not affect the restriction.

If, for example, a publisher reports on a case involving a 17-year-old found guilty of a crime heard in Crown Court, where reporting restrictions had been lifted by the court, the publisher would not be permitted to name the same 17-year-old involved in a subsequent case at Magistrates’ Court where reporting restrictions have been imposed.

Each court has the power to make a reporting restriction order under Section 45 of the YJCE Act 1999. Therefore, it is for the Magistrates’ Court in this case to determine whether the discretionary reporting restriction currently in place should be lifted.

The restrictions detailed above expire where they apply to any young person concerned in proceedings when they turn 18. Courts can make an order under Section 45A of the YJCE Act 1999 to extend anonymity for a witness or victim/alleged victim for their lifetime. Lifetime anonymity can also be granted to defendants by way of a High Court injunction, but these are extremely rare.

Victims and alleged victims of sexual offences, along with certain other types of offending including FGM, forced marriage an anonymity for their lifetime under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 lifetime (and for 25 years after their death in Northern Ireland). This restriction includes taking care to avoid ‘jigsaw identification’ across your output, where you might end up publishing enough information about the person so that people can work out their identity by piecing it together. There is a particular risk of jigsaw identification, for example, where a victim is not named but their relationship to the offender is reported. The law is reflected in Clause 6.4 – Justice, which says you must preserve the anonymity of victims of sexual offences, except as permitted by law or with the individual’s express consent. A full list of the offences to which automatic anonymity applies can be found at Part 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 [Linked here: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/1]. Please note this now includes a number of online offences such as cyberflashing and intimate image abuse.

Witnesses or victims/alleged victims of other types of offence may be anonymised where the court makes an order under section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. For example, a court will generally impose a section 11 order in a blackmail case to ban identification of the victim/alleged victim, to prevent them from suffering the same harm as the blackmail itself through the reporting of proceedings. Section 11 orders are sometimes imposed incorrectly and outside of the court’s powers – if you consider an order which restricts reporting has been wrongly imposed, you can challenge it (see above).

Some victims/alleged victims may voluntarily allow themselves to be identified and waive their right to anonymity. For example, they may wish to be named as part of a campaign to help raise awareness of low conviction rates for sexual offences. If a victim chooses to be identified, you would not be in breach of Clause 6 – Justice. Nevertheless, you should still consider whether it is appropriate to obtain their consent whenever you want to publish an article where they will be named. Best practice is to obtain written consent from the person. However, if one publisher obtains consent and identifies a victim, other publishers may take the view it is safe to also identify them even if they do not have a written waiver themselves, as they may consider the risk of a complaint will be low in such circumstances (https://www.impressorg.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/148-2018-a-person-and-byline-final-adjudication1.pdf). Each publisher needs to make up their own mind on the risk and how it aligns with their editorial values.

Family courts were historically closed to the press and public and, despite gradual moves towards transparency, remained until recently incredibly complex to report on, with a high risk of committing contempt of court. However, since January 2025, new rules in place in all family courts in England and Wales mean journalists can report what they see and hear (and information in certain documents), subject to any restrictions imposed by the court. Children’s anonymity is strictly preserved in law to protect them from publicity.

The new rules vary section 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 to allow greater reporting by the making of a ‘Transparency Order’ which sets out what can and cannot be reported. See family court guidance here, including a sample Transparency Order: https://www.judiciary.uk/courts-and-tribunals/family-law-courts/open-reporting-provisions/. Family court proceedings remain subject to Section 97 of the Children Act 1989 which makes it an offence to publish material likely to identify a child under 18, including the name of their school. Children involved in family proceedings may be identified with the permission of the court in very rare circumstances, such as an appeal to help find a child where they have been abducted by a parent.

Criminal Procedure Rule 5.8 sets out what information courts must supply on request to journalists. This includes the date of any hearing, each offence alleged and any plea entered, decisions of the court such as whether to grant bail, names and address of the defendant, names of judge, magistrates and legal representatives and any reporting restrictions in place. See HMCTS guidance to staff for supporting media access to criminal courts [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/guidance-to-staff-on-supporting-media-access-to-courts-and-tribunals/jurisdictional-guidance-to-support-media-access-to-courts-and-tribunals-criminal-courts-guide-accessible-version]. This also contains other useful information about court rules and procedures and how to contact the Courts and Tribunals Service Centre (CTSC) for information on criminal cases in the Magistrates’ Court (note, Crown Courts should be contacted directly).

Yes, reporters’ rights to obtain certain court documents are enshrined in court rules and procedures, and case law. A protocol agreed between HMCTS and media representative bodies sets out how Magistrates’ Courts will provide copies of the court registers and lists to the media free of charge [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/guidance-to-staff-on-supporting-media-access-to-courts-and-tribunals/protocol-on-sharing-court-lists-registers-and-documents-with-the-media-accessible-version]. Similar arrangements are in place for Crown Courts. Criminal practice directions state that reporters should be given a copy of the charge sheet or indictment where the alleged offences have been read aloud in court. The Crown Prosecution Service also has a protocol on information sharing in criminal cases which sets out what will normally be released to the media [https://www.cps.gov.uk/publication/media-protocol-working-together-support-open-justice].

Civil and family courts have different rules on which documents can be accessed, but journalists should generally be able to access documents including skeleton arguments and witness statements by requesting them from lawyers in most cases. Some documents will require a request in writing and payment of a fee. See McNae’s for details on civil courts and tribunals.

The conviction and sentencing of someone who committed a crime is a matter of public record and the principle of open justice applies. However, an exception to this is when a sentence is completed and the conviction becomes ‘spent’ in accordance with the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (ROA). A conviction becomes ‘spent’ after the ‘rehabilitation period’ for the sentence ends. Once someone has a ‘spent’ conviction, the individual is considered ‘rehabilitated’, the conviction is no longer part of their criminal record, and they are treated for all purposes in law as a person who has not been convicted of the offence in question. The length of a rehabilitation period will depend on the sentence given. In the most serious cases, such as those of murder where a life sentence is mandatory, rehabilitation periods do not apply and so the conviction will always be disclosed.

If the conviction has become ‘spent’, it is not a criminal offence to continue publication of the conviction. However, continued publication may expose you to accusations of breach of privacy or defamation, as the reporting of a ‘spent’ conviction amounts to an untruth in law. If you are uncertain of whether an individual’s conviction has become ‘spent’, then you can refer to government guidance online which clarifies rehabilitation periods [https://www.gov.uk/guidance/rehabilitation-periods].

The conviction and sentencing of someone who committed a crime is a matter of public record and the principle of open justice applies. However, an exception to this is when a sentence is completed and the conviction becomes ‘spent’ in accordance with the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (ROA). A conviction becomes ‘spent’ after the ‘rehabilitation period’ for the sentence ends. Once someone has a ‘spent’ conviction, the individual is considered ‘rehabilitated’, the conviction is no longer part of their criminal record, and they are treated for all purposes in law as a person who has not been convicted of the offence in question. The length of a rehabilitation period will depend on the sentence given. In the most serious cases, such as those of murder where a life sentence is mandatory, rehabilitation periods do not apply and so the conviction will always be disclosed.

Criminal offence data has certain conditions under the Data Protection Act 2018, including one for journalism in connection with unlawful acts which protects disclosure of such data in the public interest.

In the event that you receive a request from someone convicted of a crime to have their personal data removed, it is important to provide them with a substantive response, regardless of whether you believe there is a basis for the request. This is because of data protection rules which set out conditions for responding to such requests. Under Clause 7.3 of the Standards Code, you are required to reasonably consider the request of a person who has been identified in news content and subsequently asks to be anonymised. It is recommended that you outline your reasons for agreeing to anonymise the individual or rejecting the request on grounds that the public has a legitimate interest or stake in the story for example. Where the individual has a ‘spent’ conviction (see above), it may be necessary to consider whether to remove the individual’s personal information. However, even where an individual’s conviction is ‘unspent’, you may wish to consider the ethical implications of continued publication. For example, the severity of the offence and how long ago the conviction took place may factor into your decision to retain the individual’s personal data. Ultimately, the action you choose to take in response is at your discretion, provided you can demonstrate that you ‘reasonably considered’ the request – again, consider putting decisions in writing to provide an audit trail.

The Information Commissioner’s Office has guidance on criminal offence data here: https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-resources/lawful-basis/a-guide-to-lawful-basis/criminal-offence-data/

General ICO guidance on data protection and journalism is here: https://ico.org.uk/media2/migrated/4025760/data-protection-and-journalism-code-202307.pdf

Yes, news outlets are required to comply with data protection law in the same way as any other organisation. Should an individual make a formal right to erasure request (also known as right to be forgotten) under UK General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR), there is a legal requirement to respond to this request within one month from receipt. You will be required to provide a substantive response, outlining whether you accept or reject the request for erasure.

If you believe that the personal data of an individual previously convicted of a crime should not be removed, the key defence you can cite in response is the exemption for journalistic purposes, which ‘relieves you from your obligations regarding the UK GDPR’s provisions on the conditions for processing special categories of personal data about criminal convictions and offences’.

However, this exemption only applies to the extent that the publication of the material in question would be in the public interest.

A public interest means the public has a legitimate stake in, and/or a right to know about a story because of its importance to society. In determining whether to erase an individual’s data from an article, it will be important to balance the individual’s right to privacy against the public interest in the story and the freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information.

Further information on this exemption can be found under section 13 of the ICO Data Protection and Journalism Code of Practice: data-protection-and-journalism-code-202307.pdf