Reporting restrictions: what courts stop the press publishing

Most court hearings in England and Wales take place in public, and the press may report what is said. In some cases, though, the law or a judge limits what can be published. These reporting restrictions do not close the courtroom. They control what can be printed, broadcast or posted online, usually to protect a person or the fairness of a trial.

Why open justice has limits

The starting point is open justice: the principle that justice should be done in public and be seen to be done. Journalists attend hearings so that the public can follow how cases are handled. Restrictions are therefore treated as exceptions. A court should impose one only where it is necessary, and it should go no further than the situation requires.

The relationship between the press and courts is also shaped by fairness. A jury must decide a case on the evidence heard in court, not on material it has seen elsewhere. Some people, such as children and complainants in sexual offence cases, are given legal protection from identification whatever their role in the case.

Automatic restrictions

Some restrictions apply by law, without anyone asking for them. Examples in England and Wales include:

• Sexual offence complainants. Under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992, a person who alleges a sexual offence is entitled to lifelong anonymity. Nothing that could lead to their identification may be published while that protection applies.
• Youth courts. Children and young people appearing in the youth court are generally protected from identification in reports of the proceedings.
• Early stages of some proceedings. Reports of certain preliminary hearings, such as committal proceedings in the magistrates' court, are limited to basic details unless the court lifts the restriction.

Reporters are expected to know these rules. A court may not mention them in the hearing, so the duty to check rests with the journalist.

Discretionary orders made by a judge

Judges and magistrates can also make orders in individual cases. Two powers under the Contempt of Court Act 1981 are widely used:

Postponement orders

Under section 4(2), a court can postpone the reporting of proceedings, or part of them, where that is necessary to avoid a substantial risk of prejudice to the administration of justice. The report is delayed rather than banned. A common use is when linked trials are held one after another and publicity about the first could affect jurors in the second.

Orders withholding names or matters

Under section 11, a court that has allowed a name or other matter to be withheld from the public in proceedings may direct that it must not be published. This power covers things such as the identity of a witness at risk of harm.

Courts also have powers to protect the identities of children and young people who are involved in criminal proceedings as defendants, victims or witnesses. In addition, the High Court can grant injunctions in civil and family matters that limit what the media can say.

Changes to how the media is told

Reporters have long complained that they heard about discretionary orders too late to challenge them. An amendment to the Criminal Procedure Rules, which took effect on 6 October 2025, now requires courts to notify journalists in advance when a discretionary restriction is being considered. It also means restrictions should not be imposed by default. Court staff use media lists so that applicants can reach the right newsrooms.

The family courts have also become more open. Since 27 January 2025, accredited journalists and legal bloggers who attend family hearings can generally report what they see and hear, subject to a transparency order that sets out what is permitted. The anonymity of children remains strongly protected.

What happens if a restriction is breached

Breaching a restriction, or publishing material that creates a substantial risk of serious prejudice to active proceedings, can amount to contempt of court. Proceedings in a criminal case are treated as active from the point of arrest or charge. In England and Wales the Attorney General can bring contempt proceedings, and the court can also act on its own initiative. Penalties for contempt in the Crown Court can include an unlimited fine or imprisonment of up to two years.

Fair, accurate and contemporaneous reports of public hearings, published in good faith, are generally protected from the strict liability rule. That protection depends on the report keeping within any order in force.

Online publication adds risk. A social media post, a comment on a news site or a shared image can fall within a restriction just as a newspaper article can. Material that stays online after an order is made may also cause problems.

How the position differs elsewhere

Other legal systems balance these interests differently. In the United States, the First Amendment makes orders that stop the media publishing in advance difficult to obtain. The Supreme Court considered the issue in Nebraska Press Association v Stuart in 1976. American judges tend to rely on other tools, such as questioning potential jurors carefully, moving a trial or restricting what lawyers and parties say outside court.

Challenging an order

Media organisations can ask a court to vary or lift a discretionary restriction, and in some cases they can seek a review by a higher court. The judiciary publishes guidance on reporting restrictions in the criminal courts, and reporters and editors use it routinely.

Why the rules matter

Reporting restrictions aim to protect fair trials and vulnerable people while keeping as much of the process as possible open to scrutiny. Careful court reporting depends on knowing which restrictions apply and checking before publication. For readers, a restriction on a report does not mean wrongdoing or secrecy. It often means a court is trying to protect someone's identity or a future jury's impartiality.