Contempt of Court in the UK: Law, Purpose and Modern Challenges
This work has been verified by our teacher: 22.01.2026 at 18:45
Homework type: Essay
Added: 20.01.2026 at 14:09
Summary:
Explore UK contempt of court law, its purpose, and modern challenges to understand how it protects justice and maintains judicial integrity effectively.
LA3: Contempt of Court – An Examination of the Law, Its Rationale, and Its Modern Challenges
Contempt of court occupies a crucial place within the English legal framework, representing a body of law specifically designed to safeguard the authority and proper functioning of the judiciary. At its core, contempt of court refers to conduct or publications which risk undermining the administration of justice or the dignity of the courts themselves. Its primary function, therefore, is as a defensive mechanism, standing guard to ensure that legal proceedings remain fair and unimpeded by external interference.
In the United Kingdom, this area of law serves not only to protect the integrity of individual cases but, more broadly, to maintain public trust in the justice system. It acts as a bulwark against actions—most notably, certain public communications and media publications—that might, wittingly or unwittingly, sway outcomes or disrupt due process. This essay aims to undertake a comprehensive exploration of the law of contempt as it particularly applies to publications. Focusing on the legal elements of the offence, statutory foundations, and illuminating case law, it will examine the justifications for its strict liability foundation, available defences, and the ongoing challenges posed by media and digital communications.
The Legal Framework Governing Contempt of Court
The Contempt of Court Act 1981
The current legal landscape for contempt as it relates to published material is rooted in the Contempt of Court Act 1981 (CCA). This piece of legislation was, in part, a response to calls for clearer rules and greater consistency, following concerns that prior laws could unduly inhibit freedom of expression. Section 1 of the CCA established a regime of “strict liability” for publications liable to create a substantial risk of serious prejudice or impediment to ongoing legal proceedings, regardless of intent. Section 2 specifically addresses the definition and liability regarding publications—including newspapers, television, and more recently, internet posts—when proceedings are 'active'.The Act distinguishes, too, between what one might term ‘civil’ and ‘criminal’ contempt—which is especially pertinent in instances where the boundary between unwise, though innocent, reporting and criminal liability becomes blurred. In matters arising from media publications, the CCA strictly classifies the offence as one which does not require proof of deliberate intent to interfere with justice; it is thus a ‘strict liability’ offence, promoting a cautious approach on the part of all publishers.
The Role of the Attorney General
Enforcement of the law in cases of contempt arising from publications typically falls under the remit of the Attorney General, who acts not only as a legal advisor to the Crown and government but also as the guardian of the public interest when it comes to the fair administration of justice. When a publication appears to fall foul of the CCA, it is the Attorney General who may bring proceedings, and the burden rests with the prosecution to demonstrate that the publication created the proscribed substantial risk.Strict Liability: Rationale and Criticism
Strict liability under the Act is viewed by many as an essential safeguard. It removes any ambiguity over the intentions or knowledge of the publisher—whether a seasoned journalist or a novice social media user—and focuses the court’s inquiry on objective risk. Critics contend, however, that this can generate a chilling effect on investigative journalism and open dialogue on matters of public interest. Yet, Parliament’s rationale is clear: protecting the right to a fair trial must prevail over individual intent in such contexts, particularly given the potential reach and influence of modern communications.Elements Constituting Contempt by Publication
The Meaning of ‘Publication’
For the purposes of the CCA, ‘publication’ is interpreted broadly. It encompasses not only printed newspapers but also any communication, whether written, spoken, broadcast, or displayed, that is disseminated to the public or a section thereof. UK courts, in cases such as *Attorney-General v Guardian Newspapers* (the “Spycatcher case”), have adopted a flexible approach, recognising the dynamic nature of information channels, including digital platforms, blogs, and social media networks such as Twitter or Facebook.Connection to ‘Active’ Proceedings
Only certain legal proceedings—those described as ‘active’ by the Act—are protected by the strict liability rule. In criminal prosecutions, this generally starts from arrest, issue of a warrant, or the laying of a charge, and ends with conviction, acquittal, or formal discontinuation. In civil matters, proceedings are ‘active’ from the time a case is commenced in court until judgment is given or the case is otherwise disposed of. Timing is critical: a potentially prejudicial article published before proceedings are active might avoid liability; the same article published after could generate culpability.The Substantial Risk Test
Central to the statutory scheme is the test established by section 2(2) of the CCA: whether the publication in question has created a “substantial risk that the course of justice in the proceedings in question will be seriously impeded or prejudiced.” The test contains two elements. First, the risk must be more than minor or speculative; secondly, the effect must be capable of serious impact upon the fairness or the proper conduct of the trial.The Substantial Risk Criterion: Clarity Through Case Law
Understanding ‘Substantial Risk’
The courts have construed ‘substantial risk’ as a matter of degree, informed by timing, content, audience, and potential for persistence. In *Attorney-General v BBC* [1987], it was stressed that material published closer to the trial date poses a greater risk, particularly if public attention is heightened. In *Attorney-General v ITN* [1992], the High Court considered the quantitative reach: national television broadcasts inherently carry a far greater danger of prejudicing a jury than obscure, low-circulation pamphlets.Nature and Impact of Serious Prejudice
The prejudice or impediment must be “serious.” This excludes minor slights but covers any action or reporting likely to shape jurors’ impressions or exert psychological pressure on participants. Prejudice can occur through emotional influence (provocative or accusatory language) or factual misstatement. Ultimately, the fairness of a trial—embodied in the impartiality of its fact-finders—is paramount.Categories of Dangerous Publications
Prejudging the Outcome
One of the most problematic types of publication involves the presumption or allocation of guilt or innocence before a verdict is reached. This was starkly addressed in *Attorney-General v MGN Ltd* [1997], where sensationalist headlines and suggestive reporting called into question the impartiality of the jury. In evaluating prejudice, courts considered three factors: the likelihood that an average juror would be exposed to the publication; the impact of the article on a typical reader; and the lasting effect on the juror at trial.Prejudicing the Jury
Jurors are susceptible not just to overt statements about guilt or innocence, but also to cumulative factual or character-based reporting, which could bias their deliberations. For instance, *Attorney-General v Times Newspapers Ltd* [1974] highlighted the dangers of providing background information or previous convictions which are inadmissible in court but remain accessible to the reading public.Criticising Parties and Eroding Fair Hearing
Another risk arises from publications directly criticising a party to the litigation, whether defendant, claimant, or even a witness. Pejorative commentary, even where not explicitly linking to guilt, can undermine the personal credibility and standing of an individual before a judge or jury.Impairment of Legal Rights
Finally, certain publications may have the effect of pre-empting or compromising the legal rights of parties—for example, by intimidating witnesses or discouraging them from testifying, or by pressuring defendants regarding their right to silence or legal representation.Defences and Public Interest
The Public Interest Defence
The CCA does allow for a limited defence where the publication is in the public interest and where it was not reasonably foreseeable that the proceedings would become active. However, the burden of proving this is high, and given the strict liability nature, many media outlets deem the risk too great.Balancing Rights: Expression and Justice
Thus emerges an enduring tension: that between Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (freedom of expression) and the right to a fair trial under Article 6. UK courts have repeatedly stressed the necessity of this balancing act, as in *Sunday Times v UK*, where the European Court recognised that some restrictions on journalism are justified where necessary to protect due process.Practical Implications and Contemporary Cases
Implications for the Media
Historically, cases such as the reporting on the trial of footballers Jonathan Woodgate and Lee Bowyer in 2001 have highlighted the severe consequences for even inadvertently prejudicial coverage. Media outlets have since invested in compliance training and internal legal checks to avoid costly missteps.The Digital Age: New Frontiers for Contempt
With the proliferation of social media, virtually anyone may become a publisher at the touch of a button. This poses unprecedented difficulties for regulation and enforcement, as illustrated in high-profile incidents where jurors have been exposed to online commentary or where inappropriate tweets triggered contempt proceedings. The High Court’s willingness to consider even the fleeting reach of a tweet as capable of generating real prejudice was seen in *Attorney-General v Dallas* [2012].Conclusion
Contempt of court law, especially as it applies to publications, is essential in defending the integrity of the British justice system. By criminalising publications that pose a substantial risk of serious prejudice to active proceedings—regardless of intent—the law seeks to preserve not just the rights of parties to a fair trial, but also the wider public’s faith in judicial impartiality.That said, the framework faces mounting pressure to adapt in light of new media realities. Its strict liability basis, while effective in encompassing both traditional and online media, has provoked debate about whether it unduly curtails free expression or merely asks publishers of all stripes to exercise caution. The real challenge lies in ensuring that this well-intentioned shield does not stifle informed public debate or legitimate investigative journalism.
Ultimately, the principle underpinning contempt law in the UK is simple: justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done, untainted by external influence. Yet as society, technology, and communication continue to evolve, so too must the mechanisms that guard our courts, ever alert to new threats and ready to balance freedom of expression with the rule of law. Continued education, robust ethical standards, and clear judicial oversight remain essential tools in achieving this delicate but vital balance.
Rate:
Log in to rate the work.
Log in