Inquiry · Opened 22 May 2025

Sub judice resolution in the House of Commons

From: Procedure Committee

Open1 document5 evidence sessions

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

parliamentary-privilegefair-trial-protectioncontempt-of-courtsocial-media-impactjudicial-independence

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

Written evidence & correspondence

Source · parliament.uk inquiry record ↗