Contempt of Court Checker — Active Proceedings Under the CCA 1981

Strict liability contempt does not care what you intended. Once proceedings are active, the question is only whether the publication creates a substantial risk of serious prejudice — and the material that does so is largely predictable: previous convictions, confessions, disputed identification photographs, and commentary on whether the case is any good.

Last reviewed: 24 August 2026Next review due: 24 August 2027

How it works

Five questions establish whether proceedings are active — arrest without charge, charge, warrant, summons, or a matter set for jury trial. A “yes” to any one of them switches the tool into active-proceedings mode.
Five more ask what you intend to publish: previous convictions before trial, confessions or off-the-record admissions, identification photographs where identity is in issue, commentary on witness credibility or case strength, and whether a s.4(2) postponement or s.11 anonymity order exists.
A confirmed court order overrides everything else and returns “Stop” — hold the story, get the exact wording of the order from the listing office, take legal advice. That branch is checked before the active-proceedings logic runs at all.
Otherwise it returns one of four levels — Low, Caution, High or Stop — each with a plain summary, specific advice, and a short list of next steps. Active proceedings plus prior convictions or admission material, or plus a disputed identification photograph, both return High.
With no active proceedings and no aggravating factor it returns Low, with an explicit reminder that proceedings can become active at any moment and the check should be re-run.

When to use it

The moment a suspect is arrested on a story you are already reporting, when the legal regime changes from defamation to contempt.
Before running archive material — an old mugshot or a previous-convictions line — on a defendant who is now awaiting trial.
When a source offers you an off-the-record admission during an active case.
Before writing anything analytical about how the prosecution or defence case is going.
On a linked-case story, where a postponement order in one trial can restrict reporting of another.

What it does not do

Not legal advice. Contempt carries criminal liability for you and your publication, and a wrong call here is not recoverable by taking the piece down.
It never reads your copy. The “substantial risk of serious prejudice” test is applied to a publication, and this tool only sees ten yes/no answers about it — it cannot judge tone, prominence, headline, or how the material would land with a jury.
It cannot tell you whether an order exists. Question 9 asks you; it has no access to court listings or the Criminal Procedure Rules Part 6 register, and orders made in chambers will not be visible to you either unless you ask court staff.
It does not distinguish between the courts, nor cover common-law contempt (intentionally prejudicing proceedings), contempt in the face of the court, jury-related offences, or civil proceedings — which become active at a different point from criminal ones.
England and Wales in substance. Scotland applies the 1981 Act with its own procedure and, in practice, a markedly stricter reporting culture.

More tools

This is one of the free tools on UK JournoHub. See the full tools index for the rest.

Primary sources

Contempt of Court Act 1981 s.2 — the strict liability rule— legislation.gov.uk
Contempt of Court Act 1981 s.4 — contemporary reports and postponement— legislation.gov.uk
Contempt of Court Act 1981 Sch.1 — when proceedings are active— legislation.gov.uk

Contempt of Court Checker — Active Proceedings Under the CCA 1981