Does an active case before an inquest jury give rise to contempt rules?
<p>The horrible <a href="https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58202760.amp" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Plymouth shooting</a> has now led to an inquest into the deaths there, and an inquest jury will be summoned for the haring in coroner's court.</p>
<p>If the gunman had survived and was to be criminally tried, there would be very strict rules about what anyone could say on social media because of contempt of court laws designed to protect the integrity of the jury's ruling.</p>
<p>Do any such contempt rules apply to an inquest jury, or can I tweet whatever I like about what I think about the way this tragedy occurred?</p>

<ul>
<li><strong>Do any such contempt rules apply to an inquest jury?</strong></li>
</ul>
<p><strong>YES</strong> but only if <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/49/section/2?timeline=false" rel="nofollow noreferrer">section 2(3) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981</a> applies:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>... only if the proceedings in question are <strong>active</strong> within the meaning of this section at the time of the publication.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/49/schedule/1?timeline=false" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Schedule 1, paragraph 12 of the 1981 Act</a> identifies that an inquest becomes active once the <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2009/25/section/1?timeline=false" rel="nofollow noreferrer">coroner beings their investigation</a> which in this case was <a href="https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/cornwall-news/live-plymouth-shooting-coroners-inquest-5806212" rel="nofollow noreferrer">on 19/08/21</a>.</p>
<ul>
<li><strong>Can I tweet whatever I like about what I think about the way this tragedy occurred?</strong></li>
</ul>
<p><strong>NO</strong>, one would be in contempt if the publication falls within <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/49/section/2?timeline=false" rel="nofollow noreferrer">section 2(2) of the 1981 Act</a> so it...</p>
<blockquote>
<p>... creates a substantial risk that the course of justice in the proceedings in question will be seriously impeded or prejudiced.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This latter requirement allows for things like fact-specific reporting (such as my 19/08/21 link).</p>

<p><strong>Yes, but</strong></p>
<p>As with any court proceedings, material which is seriously prejudicial to the inquest under the Contempt of Court Act 1981 could give rise to criminal liability, <strong>but</strong></p>
<p>In general it is rare for inquests, which often sit without juries, to be at risk of serious prejudice.  The situation is analagous to that of civil courts.  <a href="https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/journalists-warned-of-contempt-of-court-risk-over-hillsborough-inquests/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">To quote from the UK press trade publication <em>The Press Gazette</em> :</a></p>
<blockquote>
<p>Journalists rarely have to worry about prejudicing inquests. Although the hearings are covered by the Contempt of Court Act 1981, it’s unusual for a report to create a substantial risk of serious prejudice … especially as coroners do not often sit with juries.</p>
</blockquote>

england-and-wales contempt-of-court