In November 2025, the Law Commission released Part 1 of its report following a comprehensive review of the current legal framework for contempt of court. Contempt of court does not have a single definition but refers to a wide variety of conduct that is deemed to interfere with the administration of justice. However, it is an important concept to understand for all, including corporate litigants, professionals giving witness testimony, and journalists. It may result in severe financial penalty or even a term of imprisonment and can arise in all manners of court cases, including commercial disputes or other civil proceedings. The Law Commission’s recommendations are said to seek to make punishment of contempt fairer, clearer, and better suited to today’s digital age. Notably, it proposes changes to when defendants are protected from prejudicial media coverage, potentially exposing them to negative reporting from arrest until charge—although privacy law continues to safeguard their identities before charges are laid.

 

Why does contempt law need reform?

Contempt of court is a broad concept – it can happen inside or outside the courtroom. Examples cited in the Law Commission’s report include deliberately breaching a court order, refusing to answer the court’s questions if called as a witness, releasing photographs, or publicly commenting on developments in court when reporting restrictions are in place. Not only can contempt be committed in many ways and circumstances, but it is also dealt with by the courts in a confusing mixture of criminal and civil law to punish wrongdoing and/or incentivise compliance with court orders. At worst, contempt overlaps with other serious criminal offences that can be punished by custodial sentences, such as perverting the course of justice.

 

The last major reform that dealt with publications that may prejudice proceedings was 1981.[1] Since then, courts and the legal profession have faced growing challenges including:

 

• • • Lack of clarity and consistency across civil and criminal courts (and some tribunals).
    • Complexity that makes the law difficult to apply and understand.
    • Digital disruption, with online platforms creating new risks for the administration of justice.

 

What does the Law Commission recommend?

The Law Commission is not seeking to overhaul the existing contempt framework or the principles which underly it; rather, it aims to refine and modernise the law. The aim is to codify and clarify the law while balancing two key principles:

 

• • • Efficient administration of justice; and
    • Freedom of expression

Under the proposed new liability framework recommended by the Law Commission, contempt would fall into four categories:

 

1. Contempt by breach of court order or undertaking

Before someone can be held in contempt for breaching an order or undertaking, the Law Commission recommends:

• • • The order must have been served and publicised in accordance with the directions and rule of the court; and
    • The court must have issued a contempt warning to the individual (except in cases involving sealed orders).

Key change: The approach to contempt resulting from a breach of an order will not depend on the type of order that was made (for example whether it was a private order, or public reporting restrictions). All breaches of orders will be dealt with in the same way.  

 

Defences include:

• • • The conduct constituting the breach was accidental;
    • Innocent mistake of fact (not a misunderstanding the order itself); and
    • Lack of knowledge of the order.

 

2. Contempt by publication when proceedings are active

This type of contempt would apply when someone publishes material which creates a substantial risk that the course of justice in active proceedings will be seriously impeded or prejudiced, and they knew proceedings were active. The proposals would shift the relevant point in time for contempt in a criminal case context to a suspect being charged. This would seek to protect freedom of expression, while also being in line with the leading 2022 Supreme Court decision against a major publishing company, which prevents suspects from being publicly identified before being charged with a criminal offence[2]. However, where the integrity of future proceedings is threatened after arrest but before charge, other forms of contempt could still apply. The Law Commission’s recommendations do not change the time civil proceedings become active. 

 

Key changes:

• • • Criminal proceedings become “active” at charge, not arrest, and extradition proceedings would be considered active from the point at which the suspect first appears in court;
    • No reverse burden of proof—the applicant must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant was aware of a risk that the proceedings were active; and
    • Public interest defence is clarified: whether publication is “merely incidental” depends on how closely the subject matter of the publication relates to the specific legal proceedings.

Defences include:

• • • The publication was in the public interest and the risk of impediment or prejudice to the proceedings was “merely incidental to the discussion”.

 

3. Contempt by disrupting proceedings

Contempt occurs where someone engages in abusive, threatening, or disorderly behaviour that disrupts any form of legal proceedings (whether criminal or civil), and they intended to do so knowing that proceedings were underway.

 

Key changes:

• • • A uniform formal test will be created for all courts (currently, some judges deal with this type of contempt without recourse to formal measures). For the first time, some tribunals would also be given the power to punish contempt.

Defences include:

• • • The defendant did not intend to perform the act and / or was not aware that legal proceedings were taking place when they performed it.

 

4. General contempt

This is the final category of contempt which seeks to include conduct that interferes with the administration of justice in a non-trivial way, even before proceedings begin. This category is intended to capture contempt which is not otherwise captured by the other categories and could be argued as an alternative ground of contempt in addition to any of the other three.

 

 

Other key recommendations

• • • The Law Commission recommends repealing sections 12(1)(a)(b)(d) and (e) of the Administration of Justice Act 1960. This section imposes liability for publishing information relating to certain types of private proceedings but does not protect a person from being liable for other types of contempt. Section 12 does not contain the same judicial scrutiny and checks as the Contempt of Court Act 1981 does. The Law Commission’s aim with repealing these sections, consistent with its other recommendations, is to promote fairness and coherence within the contempt framework.
    • The Law Commission considered whether the Attorney General should retain the power to bring proceedings for strict liability contempt and recommends that it should. However, the Law Commission recommends there should be no consent requirement for proceedings for general contempt, contempt by breach of order or undertaking, or contempt by disrupting proceedings.
    • The range of potential disposals for contempt would be widened to include community sentences for the first time, as a less severe form of punishment than a financial penalty or imprisonment. Community sentences could include conditions, including curfews, movement restrictions or curfews.

 

What does this mean for court participants and their legal advisors?

The changes recommended by the Law Commission seek to make the law of contempt clearer and easier to apply. Whilst the changes do not fundamentally change the principles or application of contempt, there are three practical implications which stand out:

 

1. When proceedings become “active” for publication-related contempt. Criminal proceedings will become active from the point at which a suspect is charged, up until the point of a guilty plea. This would be a departure from the current approach which is that proceedings are active when a suspect is arrested. This is particularly relevant where there is a large space of time between arrest and charge and creates a larger period of time where someone cannot be held liable for publication related contempt. However, it should be noted that general contempt still applies prior to charge so although this distinction has been created, any “interference with the administration of justice” would still be covered by general contempt. Suspects who are publicly identified prior to a charging decision will also retain existing, alternative forms of recourse, which is of particular importance in the digital age.
2. How different types of contempt interact under the new framework. Proceedings for contempt can be brought on the basis of any or all of the above categories of contempt. For example, the grounds can be argued in the alternative. An applicant may argue that a defendant has breached a court order, but in the alternative that the defendant is in breach of general contempt.
3. No longer a distinction between civil and criminal contempt. The distinction has served little practical purpose previously, however a key change for businesses and their advisors will be in respect of breach of court order or undertaking – the type of order made will no longer matter (for example whether it is a private order, or public reporting restrictions).

[1] Contempt of Court Act 1981 (CCA 1981)

[2] Bloomberg v ZXC [2022] UKSC 5

 

This article was written by Diana Czugler, Of Counsel and Tiffany Buckley, Associate Solicitor.