Inquiry · Opened 22 May 2025
Sub judice resolution in the House of Commons
From: Procedure Committee
What this inquiry is asking
Should Parliament change the rule that stops MPs discussing active court cases? The inquiry examines whether the current sub judice resolution—which prevents parliamentary comment on live legal proceedings—remains fit for purpose in the social media age, what the activation point should be (arrest vs. charge), whether ministerial decisions should be exempt, and how to balance parliamentary free speech against protecting fair trials.
Status / emerging findings
- All three former Attorneys General (Grieve, Ellis, Wright) reported the rule works effectively in practice and requires no urgent reform, though lay MPs perceive it as opaque and self-censor beyond what the rule actually requires.
- Current Attorney General Lord Hermer supports extending restrictions to point of arrest (not charge) to align with contempt law, but acknowledges competing concerns around police identification and certainty.
- Parliamentary comment carries disproportionate weight in jury trials compared to media coverage, particularly given MPs' platform and parliamentary privilege; no trial has ever collapsed due to parliamentary discussion alone.
- Baroness Scotland advocates mandatory induction training for new MPs on sub judice rules, citing the decline in lawyer membership and the rule's increasing complexity in the social media era.
- Ministerial decisions should remain exempt from sub judice rules due to parliamentary accountability; arm's length bodies (regulators, agencies) require case-by-case analysis rather than blanket exemption.
Why it matters
This determines whether MPs can openly scrutinise live legal cases involving powerful figures, regulators, or government bodies—a tension between parliamentary accountability and trial fairness that affects both judicial independence and democratic oversight.
Tone arc
Started procedurally technical (House Commons officials explaining mechanics), shifted to constitutional principle-balancing when former Attorneys General testified that the rule works despite MP perceptions, then became more reform-focused in final sessions as Lord Hermer signalled openness to alignment with contempt law thresholds.
Themes
Key witnesses
Rt Hon Lord Hermer KC (Attorney General), Rt Hon Baroness Scotland of Asthal KC (former AG 2007-2010), Rt Hon Dominic Grieve KC (former AG 2010-2014), Rt Hon Sir Michael Ellis KBE KC (former AG 2021-2022), Sir Jeremy Wright (former AG 2014-2018), Dr Farrah Bhatti (House of Commons official), Law Commission (Baroness Scotland role)
Witness sessions
Oral evidence · 29 October 2025 · HC 933
Session 1 of 5House of Commons; House of Commons; House of Commons; +7 more
Oral evidence · 12 November 2025 · HC 933
Session 2 of 5Rt. Hon. Dominic Grieve KC; Rt. Hon. Sir Michael Ellis KBE, KC; Sir Jeremy Wright
Oral evidence · 3 December 2025 · HC 933
Session 3 of 5Professor Penney Lewis, Commissioner for Criminal Law, Law Commission
Oral evidence · 3 December 2025 · HC 933
Session 4 of 5The Rt Hon. the Baroness Scotland of Asthal KC, former Attorney General
Oral evidence · 21 January 2026 · HC 933
Session 5 of 5
Written evidence & correspondence
Correspondence · 4 March 2026
Correspondence received from Mr Speaker, regarding sub judice resolution, dated 20 March 2025.
Source · parliament.uk inquiry record ↗