Skip to main content

Challenging Reporting Restrictions

Reporting restrictions are exceptions to open justice — and the law requires them to be necessary, proportionate, and made only after the media has had a chance to be heard. This is the procedural guide to fighting one: what to do at the press bench, how to get an order varied or lifted, and the appeal routes when the court says no.

Last reviewed: Next review due:

Jurisdiction note: This guide covers the criminal courts of England and Wales, where the Criminal Procedure Rules apply. For what restrictions exist in the first place, see our reporting restrictions overview; for Scotland and Northern Ireland, see our Scottish courts and Northern Ireland courts guides.

The starting point: the law is on your side

Every challenge to a reporting restriction starts from the same place: open justice is the rule, and restriction is the exception. The Judicial College's Reporting Restrictions in the Criminal Courts — the guidance judges and magistrates themselves work from, currently in its fifth edition (July 2023) — puts it in four propositions: the administration of justice must be done in public and the media may report proceedings fully and contemporaneously; any restriction is exceptional and must be based on necessity; the burden is on the party seeking the restriction to establish, with clear and cogent evidence, that it is necessary; and the terms of any order must be proportionate, going no further than needed to meet the objective.

The same guidance tells courts that over-broad orders are liable to be set aside, as are orders that last too long, and that the court must always consider whether a less restrictive alternative would do. Where a restriction is sought to protect someone's privacy, the courts balance Article 8 against Article 10 — and the Judicial College guide, citing the House of Lords in In re S (A Child) (Identification: Restrictions on Publication) [2005] 1 AC 593, notes that the combined weight of open justice, the Article 6 right to a public hearing, and Article 10 makes it a rare case in which privacy rights successfully restrict the reporting of criminal proceedings.

Practical consequence: carry the Judicial College guide (it is a free PDF — linked below) to court. When you challenge an order, you are not asking for a favour; you are asking the court to apply its own published guidance. Quoting the necessity and proportionality tests from it, by page, is often all a well-founded challenge needs.

Your procedural rights: CrimPR Part 6

The procedure for making, varying and removing reporting restrictions is in Part 6 ("Reporting, etc. restrictions") of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2025 (SI 2025/909), which replaced the identically numbered Part 6 of the 2020 Rules on 6 October 2025 — older textbooks and guides citing "CrimPR 2020, Part 6" are describing the same scheme. The rules that matter to reporters:

Rule 6.2 — your right to be heard
Before exercising a power to restrict reporting or public access, the court must ensure each party and every person directly affected — expressly including any reporter — is present or has had an opportunity to attend or to make representations.
Rule 6.4 — applications must be notified to the media
Whoever applies for a restriction must notify the other parties and reporters (via the arrangements the Lord Chancellor directs), specify the proposed terms and duration, and explain both the power the court can use and why the restriction is necessary.
Rule 6.5 — applying to vary or remove
A party or any person directly affected by a restriction — including a journalist or news organisation — may apply to the court for the restriction to be varied or removed, notifying the parties and reporters.
Rule 6.7 — representations in response
Anyone objecting to an application serves representations as soon as reasonably practicable after getting notice, explains the objection, and can propose alternative, narrower terms.
Rule 6.8 — the order must be recorded and publicised
The court officer must record the court’s reasons and, as soon as reasonably practicable, display notice of the decision prominently near the courtroom and communicate it to reporters.
Rule 6.3 — formality can flex
The court may extend or shorten time limits, allow oral instead of written applications and representations, and dispense with notice requirements. A reporter on their feet at the press bench can therefore be heard without a formal written application.

Note what this adds up to: the media is not a bystander in restriction decisions. You are a "person directly affected" with standing to be heard before an order is made, and standing to apply to vary or remove one after it is made — no lawyer required to start the process.

In the courtroom: the immediate playbook

  • Act immediately, through the legal adviser or clerk. If a restriction is floated or made, tell the court — via the legal adviser in the magistrates’ court, or counsel/the clerk in the Crown Court — that you are a journalist directly affected and wish to make representations. The Judicial College guidance tells courts to hear the media before making any order, and, where an order was made without notice, to hear you as soon as possible afterwards.
  • Ask for the order in writing, with the power stated. A valid order should be committed to writing in precise terms, giving its legal basis, precise scope, duration, and when it ceases to have effect, with reasons recorded. HMCTS guidance also requires orders to state how to challenge them. If the court cannot say which statutory power it used, that is your first submission.
  • Make the necessity submission. The burden is on whoever sought the order to justify it with clear and cogent evidence. Ask: what evidence was produced? Automatic restrictions (and the media’s own codes) may already cover the concern — a discretionary order duplicating them is not necessary.
  • Offer the narrower alternative. Proportionality is your friend: propose a postponement instead of a permanent ban, a named-individual carve-out instead of a blanket order, or a shorter duration. Rule 6.7 expressly invites alternative terms, and courts are told over-broad orders are liable to be set aside.
  • Put it in writing if you cannot be there. Written representations satisfy the rules — email the court, identify the case and order, state your standing as a reporter directly affected, and set out the necessity and proportionality points. Ask for the representations to be put before the judge or bench.
  • Ask for a review at the next stage. The Judicial College guidance says restrictions should in any event be reviewed at significant stages, such as verdict and sentence. A s.4(2) postponement that made sense mid-trial often cannot survive conviction.
  • Comply while you challenge. An order you believe is defective still binds you until it is varied, discharged, or overturned. Publishing in breach invites contempt proceedings — fight the order, not the contempt law.

Escalating a Crown Court order: the s.159 appeal

If the Crown Court makes a restriction and refuses to budge, the media has a statutory right of appeal. Section 159 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 lets a "person aggrieved" — which the courts have held includes representatives of the media, as well as the defendant and the Crown — appeal, with leave, to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) against:

  • Contempt of Court Act orders: Orders under s.4 (postponement of reports) or s.11 (withholding names or other matters) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 made in relation to a trial on indictment.
  • Public access orders: Orders restricting the access of the public to the whole or any part of a trial on indictment, or to any proceedings ancillary to such a trial.
  • Any other reporting restriction on the trial: Any order restricting the publication of any report of the whole or part of a trial on indictment or its ancillary proceedings. The Judicial College guide notes this limb has been given “the widest possible construction”, covering for example reporting restrictions granted under s.46 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999.

The mechanics are in CrimPR 2025 Part 40 ("Appeal to the Court of Appeal about reporting or public access restriction"). Move fast: the appeal notice must be served not more than 10 business days after an order restricting reporting of the trial — and by the next business day after an order restricting public access. Permission (leave) is required in every case, and the notice is served on the Crown Court officer, the Registrar, the parties, and anyone else directly affected. The Court of Appeal may confirm, reverse or vary the order, may stay the trial while it decides, and its decision is final. An appeal can be pursued even after the restriction has been discharged — which matters when you want the point settled for next time.

One gap to know about: s.159 is an appeal against the impositionof restrictions. The Judicial College guide notes it does not cover a Crown Court decision refusing, discharging, or declining to vary a restriction — in those situations the aggrieved party's route is judicial review of the Crown Court's decision. A s.159 appeal is a formal Court of Appeal proceeding: this is the stage where your newsroom should be instructing a media lawyer, and where publishers frequently join forces to share the load.

Magistrates' court orders: judicial review

There is no equivalent of s.159 for the magistrates' courts — no statutory appeal against a magistrates' reporting restriction. The route is judicial review in the Administrative Court. In R (Marandi) v Westminster Magistrates' Court[2023] EWHC 587 (Admin), a challenge to a reporting restrictions decision of Westminster Magistrates' Court, the High Court confirmed that, in the absence of any right of appeal, judicial review is "the recognised procedure" for cases of this kind — whichever side of the order the aggrieved party is on. The Judicial College guidance to judges states the same route.

In practice, exhaust the cheap step first: ask the bench, through the legal adviser, to reconsider under rule 6.5 — magistrates who made an order without hearing the media will often revisit it once the necessity and proportionality tests are put squarely. If the court refuses, judicial review is the escalation: a pre-action letter from a media lawyer setting out the open justice framework resolves some cases without proceedings ever being issued. For the beat context, see our magistrates' court daily practice guide.

Defects that sink orders

Restriction orders made in haste are often vulnerable on their face. Check every order you encounter against this list — each item is drawn from the requirements in the Criminal Procedure Rules, the Judicial College guidance, or HMCTS's own instructions to court staff:

  • No statutory power identified. Orders must state their legal basis. A court cannot invent restriction powers it does not have — the Judicial College guidance is explicit that, absent a statutory or common law exception, the court must not prevent identification by name and address of those appearing in proceedings.
  • Never put in writing. A restriction announced orally must be committed to writing in precise terms as soon as possible. If no written order exists, ask for one — the drafting exercise frequently exposes that the order is wider than any power supports.
  • Media never notified or heard. Rule 6.4 requires the applicant to notify reporters; rule 6.2 requires the court to give directly affected persons a chance to be heard. An order made in breach invites an immediate application to vary or discharge.
  • No evidence of necessity. The applicant must justify the restriction with clear and cogent evidence. Assertion, embarrassment, or reputational discomfort does not meet the necessity threshold.
  • Over-broad or indefinite terms. Orders must be narrowly tailored to their objective, with a stated duration. Blanket bans and orders with no end point are the classic candidates for being set aside.
  • Duplicating an automatic restriction. If a statutory automatic restriction (or an enforceable code obligation) already covers the concern, a discretionary order adding nothing is by definition unnecessary.
  • Never reviewed. Restrictions should be revisited at significant stages — verdict and sentence above all. A postponement order that has outlived its justification should be lifted on request.

For what the underlying restrictions are — s.4(2) and s.11 Contempt of Court Act 1981, youth and sexual offence anonymity, and the rest — see our reporting restrictions overview. For the contempt framework that makes compliance non-negotiable while you challenge, see contempt in active proceedings.

Primary sources

Frequently asked questions

Do journalists have a right to be heard before a reporting restriction is made?
Yes. Rule 6.2 of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2025 requires the court to ensure that each party and every person directly affected — expressly including any reporter — is present or has had an opportunity to attend or to make representations before a reporting or access restriction is imposed. The Judicial College guidance to judges says courts are required to hear the media’s representations before making any order, and that an applicant for a restriction must notify reporters of the application. Where an order is exceptionally made without notice, the court should invite media representations at the first available opportunity.
What legal test does the court have to apply?
Necessity and proportionality. The Judicial College’s Reporting Restrictions in the Criminal Courts guidance states that any restriction on open justice must be exceptional, that the burden lies on the party seeking it to establish necessity on clear and cogent evidence, and that the terms of any order must be proportionate — going no further than needed to meet the objective. Over-broad orders, and orders that last too long, are liable to be set aside. If the applicant has produced no evidence, or a less restrictive alternative would do, say so: those are the exact questions the court is directed to ask itself.
What should a reporting restriction order actually contain?
A written order in precise terms. The Judicial College guidance says a formal order must be committed to writing as soon as possible after it is announced, stating its legal basis, its precise scope, its duration and when it ceases to have effect, with the reasons recorded. HMCTS guidance to court staff requires the order to state the power used and how to challenge it, and rule 6.8 CrimPR 2025 requires notice of the decision to be displayed prominently near the courtroom and communicated to reporters. If you are handed a vague verbal direction with no statutory power identified, that is a defect worth raising immediately.
How do I apply to vary or lift an existing restriction?
Under rule 6.5 CrimPR 2025, a party or anyone directly affected by a restriction — which includes reporters and news organisations — may apply to the court that made it for the restriction to be varied or removed. Rule 6.7 governs representations in response to someone else’s application: serve them as soon as reasonably practicable after notice, explain your objection, and propose narrower terms if you have them. The court can accept oral instead of written representations (rule 6.3), so in practice a reporter standing up in court, or a note passed to the legal adviser, can start the process the same day.
How do I challenge a Crown Court restriction order?
Section 159 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 gives a “person aggrieved” — which the courts have held includes media representatives — a right of appeal, with leave, to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) against Crown Court orders under s.4 or s.11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, orders restricting public access to a trial on indictment or ancillary proceedings, and orders restricting reporting of such a trial. Under CrimPR 2025 Part 40 the appeal notice must be served not more than 10 business days after an order restricting reporting (the next business day for public-access orders), and permission is required in every case. The Court of Appeal can confirm, reverse or vary the order, and its decision is final.
What about a restriction imposed by a magistrates’ court?
There is no statutory appeal against a magistrates’ court reporting restriction. The route is judicial review in the Administrative Court: in R (Marandi) v Westminster Magistrates’ Court [2023] EWHC 587 (Admin), a challenge to a reporting restrictions decision of Westminster Magistrates’ Court, the High Court noted that in the absence of any right of appeal, judicial review is “the recognised procedure” for cases of this kind. In practice, ask the magistrates (via the legal adviser) to reconsider first; JR is the escalation once the court has refused.
The order was made before anyone told the press. Is it valid?
It may still bind you until varied or discharged — breaching an order because you think it is flawed is contempt territory. But it is vulnerable. The Criminal Procedure Rules require the applicant to notify reporters and the court to give directly affected persons the chance to be heard; the Judicial College guidance says that where an order was made without the media being heard, the court should hear representations on lifting or varying it as soon as possible, and should review restrictions at significant stages such as verdict and sentence. Ask for that hearing the same day, in writing if you cannot attend.
Can court staff advise me on what a restriction covers?
No. HMCTS guidance explicitly instructs court staff to avoid advising journalists on the interpretation or scope of reporting restrictions, because of the contempt risk to the staff themselves. Staff should provide the written order, and the court should be willing to clarify problems with the order in open court if raised. If the scope genuinely matters to your story, get the order’s text, raise ambiguity with the court, and take legal advice before publishing into a grey area.

Related guides

Media LawReporting Restrictions OverviewRead →Media LawContempt: Active ProceedingsRead →Court ReportingCrown Court Reporting in DetailRead →Court ReportingReporting the Single Justice ProcedureRead →Media LawLandmark Media Law CasesRead →Court ReportingCourt Reporting HubRead →

Primary sources

Not legal advice. This guide is for educational purposes. Consult a qualified media lawyer before making publication decisions in legally sensitive situations.