Committees

New inquiry launched into sub judice resolution

22 May 2025

The Procedure Committee has launched a new inquiry into the sub judice resolution

The sub judice resolution prevents MPs from referring to a current or impending court case. The resolution is intended to avoid influencing, or appearing to attempt to influence, the outcome of court proceedings, and to avoid acting as an alternative forum for discussion of matters that are before the courts.

Cat Smith MP, Chair of the Procedure Committee, said:

“The role of Parliament as the forum for national debate is an important cornerstone of our democracy, and MPs must have the ability to speak openly and freely on current affairs and matters of public interest. In doing so, however, they must exercise caution and avoid undue impact on matters that are before the courts of the land. The sub judice resolution is the way in which this delicate balance is maintained.

"The political, media and online landscapes have changed immensely since the current sub judice resolution was first agreed to by the Commons in 2001 and the time is right for an in-depth review. The Committee intends to investigate this matter thoroughly and welcome the views of colleagues, legal experts and other interested parties on this vitally important topic.”

Background

The full terms of reference for the inquiry:

Operability of the sub judice resolution

  • In its current form, does the design, operation and application of the sub judice resolution continue to strike the right balance between restricting Members from addressing matters of public interest and avoiding impact on live judicial proceedings?
  • The risk of prejudicing court hearings is regulated outside of Parliament by the Contempt of Court Act 1981, and inside Parliament by the sub judice resolution. Are the two regimes working in tandem effectively? Should they be aligned to a higher or lower degree?
  • Is the present distinction between how the sub judice resolution operates in relation to criminal cases and to civil cases effective?
  • Has the Speaker’s exercise of his/her discretion enabled MPs to effectively discuss matters of public interest where necessary without prejudice to legal proceedings?
  • Are the Chair’s current disciplinary powers for responding to beaches of the sub judice resolution sufficient? If not, how should breaches be dealt with?

Evolution of UK politics and constitution since 2001

  • Has the constitutional evolution of the United Kingdom since 2001 impacted on the operability of the sub judice rule across all legislatures of the UK? Is there any difference in interpretation and application across the legislatures?
  • Have HoC proceedings evolved in any way since 2001 that has impacted on the interpretation and application of the sub judice resolution?
  • Has the role of an MP evolved since 2001 in such a way that the sub judice resolution impacts on the ability of MPs to effectively represent constituents in matters of public interest?

Legal developments since 2001

  • Has the structure or practice of the courts since 2001 (for example, an increasing role for Tribunals; increased use of judicial review etc.) changed in ways which have affected how the sub judice resolution is or should be applied?
  • Is it appropriate that the sub judice resolution does not apply to final injunctions? Is there a different between interim injunctions and those that are no longer subject to ongoing proceedings?
  • Could the Law Commission’s proposals for reform of the Contempt of Court Act 1981have any implications for the sub judice resolution?
  • Are there any additional domestic legal developments since 2001 which have impacted the interpretation or application of the sub judice resolution?
  • Should any international legal developments – including, but not limited to, the European Court of Human Right’s judgment in Green v United Kingdom – be taken into account in the application of the sub judice resolution? How should any domestic or international legal developments, and their impact on the sub judice resolution, remain under review?

Changing media landscape since 2001

  • What are the implications for the operability of the sub judice resolution from the emergence of social media and increased media attention on Parliamentary matters?

International comparison

  • How have other legislatures across the world evolved in their practices in relation to the treatment of similar matters since 2001?

Further information

Image: House of Commons