The death of 78-year-old Ann Widdecombe would have been surprising no matter the circumstances. The former Conservative minister and ex-Reform UK spokeswoman appeared to be in good health, giving an interview just minutes before her suspected killing.
Yet, it is the nature of her death – now being investigated by counter-terrorism police – that is particularly staggering.
Counter-terrorism police, who took over the investigation from Devon and Cornwall police, have now said that Widdicombe was killed in a “targeted attack”. But before this detail was confirmed, Reform UK leader Nigel Farage came under fire for telling reporters that he believed the attack was “premeditated murder”. He has continued to speak publicly on the case, telling TalkTV that the prime minister and Chief Constable of Devon and Cornwall Police both told him it was a burglary gone wrong.
In such a high-profile case, there is a real temptation to speculate on the details or motivations of her death by those in the media, by other politicians or even on social media by the general public.
Senior policing figures have asked the public not to engage in such speculation, that it might be unhelpful for the investigation and distressing for Widdecombe’s family. Downing Street has also warned against speculating because of the importance of protecting the “integrity” of the investigation.
Such speculation may also amount to a contempt of court. Contempt of court refers to several laws which help to maintain the authority and impartiality of the trial process. It includes laws which prohibit the taking of photographs in court or the disruption of court proceedings, and those which make it unlawful to breach orders of the court.
The type of contempt likely to be committed by speculation about Widdecombe’s death is known as “contempt by publication”. It occurs when published material creates a substantial risk that legal proceedings will be seriously impeded or prejudiced.
This type of contempt may only be committed when proceedings are “active”. For criminal cases, this is when there is an arrest without warrant; a warrant is issued for an arrest; a summons is issued; there is service of an indictment or other document specifying the charge; or an individual is orally charged with an offence.
Such proceedings remain active until there is a conviction and sentence, discontinuance, acquittal or “other verdict, finding, order or decision which puts an end to the proceedings”.
At the time of writing, a 28-year-old man has been arrested on suspicion of killing Widdecombe. This means that proceedings in the case are active, and that a publication which might prejudice or impede them may amount to a contempt.
In contempt cases, a “publication” includes the traditional print and broadcast media such as newspapers, television and radio. It also includes posts on social media. This means that anyone, not only journalists, may be found to have committed a contempt of court. The law here is “strict liability”, meaning that a person may commit a contempt even if they did not intend to prejudice or impede a trial.
Read more: Sarah Everard: social media and the very real danger of contempt of court
There are some high-profile examples where prejudicial reporting has collapsed a trial. In 2011, a jury was discharged from considering an attempted abduction charge against murderer Levi Bellfield.
Bellfield’s defence team successfully argued that the reporting of his conviction for the murder of Milly Dowler was so prejudicial that he would not receive a fair trial. Both the Daily Mail and the Daily Mirror were later found to have committed contempt in their reporting of the case.
Right to a fair trial
The law of contempt by publication attempts to ensure that trials are conducted fairly, and only according to evidence put forward and tested in court, rather than on the basis of opinion and conjecture made outside of court.
Put simply, a trial would not be fair if a jury’s decision about a defendant’s guilt or innocence was influenced by material they saw online, but which neither the prosecution nor defence were aware of or had the opportunity to challenge.
People found to be in contempt of court may be imprisoned for up to two years, receive an unlimited fine or both.
There are three defences to contempt by publication. The first is if those responsible for a particular publication were unaware and had no reason to suspect that proceedings were active.
The second defence allows for the “fair and accurate report of legal proceedings held in public, published contemporaneously and in good faith”. This permits, for example, non-sensationalist reporting of the case in general and as events unfold, including in court – such as arguments put forward by the prosecution and defence.
The third defence allows for discussions of matters in good faith of “public affairs or other matters of general public interest” where the risk to the legal proceedings is “incidental”. In this particular case, the defence would allow, for instance, a discussion about the safety of politicians, because any risk to legal proceedings would be minimal and indirect. It would not, though, permit discussion about whether a particular person was responsible for Widdecombe’s death.
The police’s appeal for people not to publicly speculate about this case will enable them to carry out their investigation more efficiently, and will protect Widdecombe’s family and friends from idle and possibly hurtful conjecture.
It also serves another purpose. It protects those who might otherwise comment from finding themselves in contempt of court. They might think twice before making any potentially prejudicial social media post. It will also help ensure the fairness and integrity of any future possible trial.
Comments are closed.