Case Study · Pre-Charge Privacy
ZXC v Bloomberg LP [2022] UKSC 5 — what it means on deadline
The Supreme Court confirmed that individuals under police investigation have a reasonable expectation of privacy before they are charged with an offence. Naming someone on arrest alone is no longer defensible practice. The ruling requires editors to weigh proportionality before publication — and "genuine public interest" sets a high bar.
Key Principle
An arrest, without charge, does not by itself justify naming a suspect. The test is whether the public interest in disclosure is proportionate to the privacy intrusion — and it usually isn't. Always consult your legal team.
Editor's Memo · Contempt
Why "released on bail" does not mean you can report freely
One of the most persistent errors in trainee copy. Under the Contempt of Court Act 1981, strict liability applies once proceedings are "active" — and they remain active while a suspect is on bail or "released under investigation." The previous convictions, the background, the social media history — all of it stays in the drawer until after sentencing.
Rule to Remember
"Released under investigation" is not released. Proceedings are still active. The test is not "is the defendant free?" but "have proceedings formally concluded?" They have not.
Case Study · Jigsaw Identification
When blurring the face is not enough
Section 45 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 grants automatic anonymity to defendants under 18 in criminal proceedings. But blurring a face alone does not satisfy the law. Combining age, street name, and a named local club — none of which is individually identifying — can uniquely identify a defendant to their community. This constitutes a criminal offence.
The Jigsaw Test
Ask: could someone in this defendant's community — a neighbour, a teacher, a parent — piece together the identity from everything published across all outlets? If yes, you may be in breach regardless of what you have personally named or blurred.
Editorial · Accuracy
The IPSO Clause 1 headline trap
Under the IPSO Editors' Code, it is not sufficient for the body copy to be accurate if the headline overstates the evidence. A headline reading "Coffee cures dementia" above a story about a small, preliminary study is a Clause 1 (Accuracy) breach, even if the article itself is carefully caveated. Corrections must appear with "due prominence" — not buried inside a subsequent edition.
Sub-Editor's Note
Your headline is part of your editorial. If it is not a fair summary of the evidence beneath it, it is inaccurate — and that breach belongs to whoever passed it for publication. The ten-second check: does the headline accurately reflect the strongest claim the evidence actually supports?