Media now has more ability to challenge reporting restrictions
21/10/2025
Media access to the criminal courts (or rather, the lack of, or inconsistencies from court to court) has been a long standing issue across England & Wales.
However, on October 6th, updates to the Criminal Procedure Rules came into force, and court reporters, news editors, and editors need to be aware of one particular change.
The October 2025 version of the Criminal Procure Rules now explicitly states (at Rule 6.4(3)(b)(ii)) that anyone applying for a discretionary reporting restriction must notify “reporters, by means of such arrangements as the Lord Chancellor directs”.
Whilst it is not clear what the “arrangements” the “Lord Chancellor directs” will be, the recent HMCTS blog on the issue states that Court staff were being prepared in advance of the rule change, and “all criminal courts will have media lists available to assist applicants with notifying journalists”.
It is worth noting that this rule only applies to discretionary reporting restrictions, so it does not apply to restrictions which arise automatically, like the restrictions on reporting Youth Court proceedings.
The rule does apply, however, to postponement orders made under S.4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, as well as restrictions imposed under S.11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, and sections 45, 45A and 46 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, to name the most commonly used statutes.
Of course, it has long been the case that journalists are recognised as interested parties when an application for a discretionary reporting restriction is made, and therefore had the right to make representations. But, crucially, the rules did not specify who was responsible for notifying the media.
As a consequence, it was regularly the case that the media did not become aware of an application until it had already been granted, or at incredibly short notice.
Being notified only once the application had been granted presented the media with a predicament, and often led to unjust orders remaining in place until the latter stages of cases. The result: the curtailment of the press’ right to report on the case in the meantime.
Court reporters may be thin on the ground these days, but every so often, a case comes along in which a discretionary reporting restriction has been made which, either in error or through the misapplication of the law, needs to be challenged. This is why the new rule is so significant.
Whilst only time will tell how this rule change will impact the media’s right to access and report on court proceedings without unjustified restriction, it is certainly a positive step towards improving that access. Both the Media Lawyers Association and the News Media Association consulted on the issue and are hailing the change as a positive step towards improved clarity and open justice.
This small but important change is something of which court reporters should be aware. It belongs in every court reporter’s tool kit, along with the most recent version of the Judicial College’s “Reporting Restrictions in the Criminal Courts” guidance.
And finally…… to repeat the comment made above, the MoJ says Court staff have been trained on the rule change and, we are told, “all criminal courts will have media lists available to assist applicants with notifying journalists”.
So, why not be proactive and ensure that newsdesk contact details are included in the media lists maintained by the Magistrates and Crown Courts in your patches? This is a quick, easy, and an inexpensive way, I think, to ensure that you are kept fully up to date by your local Courts.
And perhaps this will be a new way to be alerted to interesting and newsworthy cases which are proceeding through the Courts, which might otherwise have been missed.