Why communicators need to think before they post about criminal cases

Social media can create a serious risk to criminal proceedings. As PCCs face abolition, communicators must understand the rules and the role of public reassurance.

By Dee Cowburn

It is something many people may not realise: once criminal proceedings become active, what you publish on social media can potentially put you in contempt of court.

The Contempt of Court Act 1981 may be more than four decades old, but its principles remain highly relevant in an age when information can be shared with thousands of people in seconds.

Under the Act’s strict liability rule, a publication may constitute contempt if it creates a substantial risk that the course of justice in proceedings will be seriously impeded or prejudiced. The definition of publication is broad and includes communications in whatever form, provided they are addressed to the public or a section of the public. The rule applies regardless of whether there was an intention to interfere with the proceedings.

Proceedings must also be ‘active’ for the strict liability rule to apply. It may include material the jury will not consider during a trial but may influence them. This could include misleading reporting, material that presumes someone’s guilt or innocence, or other prejudicial information. For professional communicators, understanding that distinction matters.

What does this mean for social media?

The speed and reach of social media make the issue particularly important. A newspaper or broadcaster will typically have access to legal advice before publishing material relating to an active criminal case. Members of the public, businesses and organisations posting on their own accounts may not have the same safeguards.

That does not mean that every post relating to an arrest or criminal case is automatically unlawful. But it does mean that anyone publishing material about an active case needs to consider whether what they share could prejudice proceedings.

As the CPS guidance puts it, publications that create a substantial risk of serious prejudice can amount to contempt. The fact that a person did not intend to interfere with justice does not, by itself, remove the risk. It is surprisingly easy to cross that line.

I once contacted a university professor who had posted about an ongoing trial with the presumption that someone would be found guilty, despite the case still being before a jury. Because if you post something while court is sitting, you might influence a juror. And it can be so serious.

That is why communicators need to exercise particular care around speculation, allegations and assumptions about guilt or innocence.

When information is scarce, the vacuum fills quickly

The challenge increases during major incidents. So when someone has been charged with a serious offence, reporting will often become more limited. Journalists should understand the legal restrictions, but the public might not.

I experienced this when I was asked to appear on BBC Radio 5 Live while investigations were ongoing into the death of Ann Widdecombe. I made it clear that I would not discuss anything operational or anything that could be deemed prejudicial. That restraint is important, but it also creates a communications challenge.

It is also why, in many cases, after a major incident, journalists come to Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) for comment, because the police can and will only say so much.

PCCs can perform a wider community reassurance and partnership role. The work in the background with community leaders following a major incident is to reassure affected communities, be visible, and work with local authority partners to ensure joined-up working is taking place. They can do that without going anywhere near the case operationally, and again the media should understand that.

What happens when PCCs disappear?

I have wondered, with the proposal to abolish PCCs in May 2028, what is going to take their place? Because you can replace their governance role and you can replace their scrutiny function, but what about the wider partnership and community leadership work they do? Who will be carrying that out?

That question matters because policing and crime are, by their nature, high-risk areas of public communication. A single incident can escalate rapidly, particularly when speculation, misinformation or AI-generated material fills an information vacuum. Once panic or anger takes hold, it can be difficult to regain control of the narrative.

In my time as the head of communications for policing and crime for the West Yorkshire PCC, and later for the Deputy Mayor for West Yorkshire, I saw this first-hand. If they could comment, they would. If they could be visible, they would. And if they could halt speculation, they would.

Trust matters when the facts are still emerging

In a fragmented political landscape, where information can travel across social media in seconds, maintaining trust during an incident is increasingly difficult. The challenge is no longer simply misinformation. It can be a combination of misinformation, speculation and AI-generated content, making it harder for people to distinguish between what is known, what is alleged and what has simply been invented.

The aim is not to fill every silence; sometimes the responsible thing is to say that there is nothing more that can be shared at that point. But an information vacuum left entirely unattended creates space for others to fill it.

The law needs to reflect the digital age

So by bringing the Contempt of Court Act 1981 up to date to include all social media and the digital age, and having serious conversations about what a replacement PCC model looks like (if having a replacement mayor isn’t a viable alternative), this could go some way to ensuring a gap doesn’t open up.

Especially because this year’s introduction of a media and policing charter, where media and police work closely together to keep the public informed in a way that hasn’t happened for decades, gives them a firm foundation to start from. But the wider communications ecosystem needs to be considered, too.

News no longer travels through a small number of established media organisations. It travels through individuals, community groups, political organisations and social platforms, with AI increasingly able to generate and amplify content along the way.

That makes responsible communication more important than ever.

Dee Cowburn is director of Dee Cowburn Communications. Dee Cowburn is director of Dee Cowburn Communications, a communications consultancy specialising in crisis communications and media relations for private, public sector and charities. With two decades of experience in high-risk political environments, she was previously head of communications in policing and crime for the Mayor for West Yorkshire, a former investigative journalist and is also a specialist partner with crisis communications agency Alder. Responsible for all communications from a political perspective around international stories, including the murder of an MP in West Yorkshire, a teacher killed in her classroom, a police officer shot as they carried out inquiries, and many other high-profile stories affecting communities. Dee has also worked with Together for Short Lives around the Assisted Dying Bill and is a trustee of Rett UK.