Warnings given about public commentary that could prejudice Southport trial

The Prime Minister, Home Secretary and prosecutors have warned against any public commentary or reporting that could prejudice the Southport case.

Criminal proceedings are subject to strict contempt of court laws designed to protect the right of any defendant to a fair trial.

The aim is to avoid the risk of potential jurors being influenced by material they see in the news or on social media when they come to try a case.

Journalists from reputable media companies receive training in the laws governing what can and cannot be reported at each stage of criminal proceedings.

And jurors are routinely told at the beginning of a trial to ignore any previous material they may have read about the case, and to consider the charges only on the information that is presented in court.

But with cases that provoke heated debate or strong feelings, it is common for the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and the Attorney General's office to remind the public about the law.

In an entry on X on Wednesday, the CPS said: "Yesterday we announced further charges against Axel Rudakubana.

"We want to remind people that criminal proceedings against Axel Rudakubana are active and therefore it is extremely important that there is no reporting, commentary or sharing of information online which could in any way prejudice these proceedings.

"We are determined to deliver justice in this case."

The Prime Minister has warned, amid accusations of a cover-up over what was known about the alleged attacker. Sir Keir Starmer spoke in the House of Commons on Wednesday after MPs were told not to discuss the case while criminal proceedings are ongoing, by the Speaker of the House Sir Lindsay Hoyle, MP for Chorley.

"It is ...of paramount importance that nothing is said in this house which could potentially prejudice a proper trial or lead to it being abandoned. I know it can be frustrating when we can see reports in the media of the matters that we are not free to discuss here, but that arises from Parliament's constitutional relationship with the courts. More importantly, at the heart of this case are three young girls. We all want to see justice done for them and for their families."

Questions have been levelled at the Government over when senior figures knew that fresh charges would be brought against alleged attacker Axel Rudakubana, who is accused of possessing ricin and an al Qaida document as well as murder and attempted murder.<

Both the candidates to be the next Tory leader, Kemi Badenoch and Robert Jenrick, have publicly asked why the information was not released earlier.

The Prime Minister said: "All of us in this House have a choice to make - including both candidates to be the next Tory leader - they can either support the police in their difficult task or they can undermine the police in theirdifficult task. And I know which side I'm on."

Earlier, Mr Jenrick suggested the State had been "lying" to the public. He told ITV's Good Morning Britain: "I want to know when the Prime Minister knew: we don't know that information, we don't know what the advice of thepolice was in this case, and we don't know why the police has chosen not to say this.

"The effect of this has been that there has been speculation over the summer, there has been a loss of trust in the police and the criminal justice process, and I think that's wrong."

His Tory rival Kemi Badenoch said there were "serious questions to be asked of the police, the CPS and also of Keir Starmer's response to the whole situation".

Writing on X, formerly Twitter, she added: "Parliament is the right place for this to happen.

"While we must abide by the rules of contempt of court and not prejudice this case, it is important that there is appropriate scrutiny."

Want a quick and expert briefing on the biggest news stories? Listen to our latest podcasts to find out What You Need To know...