Skip to content

All content is available under the Open Government Licence v3.0, except where otherwise stated.

To view this licence, visit:
https://nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3

or write to:
Information Policy Team,
The National Archives,
Kew,
London TW9 4DU

or email: psi@nationalarchives.gov.uk.

This publication is available at:
https://lawcom.gov.uk.

© Crown copyright

New framework to modernise contempt of court laws

Published:
contempt of court

Courts will have clearer powers to protect trials and enforce orders under recommendations published today by the Law Commission.

Over 100 people receive prison sentences each year for contempt of court.

The new framework aims to make the law fairer and more consistent.

The proposals create four distinct categories of contempt. These replace the confusing distinction between civil and criminal contempt. Courts will be able to act when people disrupt proceedings, breach a court order, publish material that risks seriously prejudicing a trial when proceedings are active, or act to deliberately interfere with the administration of justice. 

The Law Commission’s recommendations follow a comprehensive review of contempt laws, which have struggled to keep pace with the rise of online communications and social media. 

When reporting on criminal cases:

  • The framework balances protecting fair trials with safeguarding freedom of expression. It sets clearer thresholds for when publication interferes with justice.
  • Criminal proceedings will be considered “active” from charge rather than arrest. This provides greater clarity for publishers who wish to report on criminal cases, whilst protecting defendants’ fair trial rights.
  • When proceedings are active then the law will remain as it has been: the test is whether a publication creates a substantial risk that the course of justice in the proceedings in question will be seriously impeded or prejudiced. The Law Commission’s view is that publishing details like a suspect’s name, age, nationality, ethnicity, religion or immigration status will generally not create that risk. However, there are no categories of information that can always be published – what can be published will depend on the circumstances in any case. Publishers must still assess whether material risks seriously prejudicing proceedings.

The Attorney General will retain powers to bring contempt proceedings in the public interest. The Attorney General’s decisions to bring or not to bring contempt proceedings will become subject to judicial review for the first time.

Commissioner for Criminal Law, Professor Penney Lewis said:

“Contempt of court laws serve a vital public interest. They protect the administration of justice, ensure fair trials and maintain public confidence in the justice system, but have become fragmented and unclear in the modern communications age. Our review found significant problems with coherence, consistency and clarity across civil, criminal and family courts.

“Our recommendations modernise the law whilst balancing the right to a fair trial with freedom of expression and the effective administration of justice. We’ve created a clearer framework with four distinct contempt forms, replacing the outdated civil-criminal distinction. These reforms make contempt law fairer and more predictable. 

“Given contempt sanctions can include imprisonment, we’ve carefully considered appropriate fault thresholds for different conduct types. The public, media and court participants will benefit from clearer, more consistent laws fit for the modern age.”

The four forms of contempt liability recommended are:

  • General contempt
    • Where the person’s conduct interfered with the administration of justice in a non-trivial way, or created a substantial risk of a non-trivial interference with the administration of justice, and
    • The person intended to interfere with the administration of justice in a non-trivial way.
  • Contempt by breach of court order or undertaking
    • Where the person breached an order or undertaking, and 
    • The person was aware that a breach would be a contempt.
  • Contempt by publication while proceedings are active
    • Where the person published material which creates a substantial risk that the course of justice in active proceedings will be seriously impeded or prejudiced, and 
    • The person was aware of a risk that proceedings were active.
  • Contempt by disrupting proceedings
    • Where the person engaged in abusive, threatening, or disorderly behaviour that resulted in the disruption of proceedings, and
    • The person was aware that legal proceedings were taking place.

Part two of the report will be published in 2026 and it will be for the Government to consider which recommendations to implement.

The report is available here.