Counter-terrorism police, who took over the investigation from Devon and Cornwall police, have now said that Widdicombe was killed in a \u201ctargeted attack\u201d. But before this detail was confirmed, Reform UK leader Nigel Farage came under fire for telling reporters that he believed the attack was \u201cpremeditated murder\u201d<\/a>. He has continued to speak publicly on the case, telling TalkTV<\/a> that the prime minister and Chief Constable of Devon and Cornwall Police both told him it was a burglary gone wrong.<\/p>\n In such a high-profile case, there is a real temptation to speculate on the details or motivations of her death by those in the media, by other politicians or even on social media by the general public. <\/p>\n Senior policing figures have asked the public not to engage<\/a> in such speculation, that it might be unhelpful for the investigation and distressing for Widdecombe\u2019s family. Such speculation may also amount to a contempt of court. Contempt of court refers to several laws which help to maintain the authority and impartiality of the trial process. It includes laws which prohibit the taking of photographs in court or the disruption of court proceedings, and those which make it unlawful to breach orders of the court.<\/p>\n The type of contempt likely to be committed by speculation about Widdecombe\u2019s death is known as \u201ccontempt by publication\u201d. It occurs when published material creates a substantial risk that legal proceedings will be seriously impeded or prejudiced<\/a>.<\/p>\n This type of contempt may only be committed when proceedings are \u201cactive\u201d. For criminal cases, this is when there is an arrest without warrant; a warrant is issued for an arrest; a summons is issued; there is service of an indictment or other document specifying the charge; or an individual is orally charged with an offence. <\/p>\n Such proceedings remain active until<\/a> there is a conviction and sentence, discontinuance, acquittal or \u201cother verdict, finding, order or decision which puts an end to the proceedings\u201d.<\/p>\n At the time of writing, a 28-year-old man has been arrested on suspicion of killing Widdecombe. This means that proceedings in the case are active, and that a publication which might prejudice or impede them may amount to a contempt.<\/p>\n In contempt cases, a \u201cpublication\u201d includes the traditional print and broadcast media such as newspapers, television and radio. It also includes posts on social media. This means that anyone, not only journalists, may be found to have committed a contempt of court. The law here is \u201cstrict liability\u201d, meaning that a person may commit a contempt even if they did not intend to prejudice or impede a trial.<\/p>\n \n There are some high-profile examples where prejudicial reporting has collapsed a trial. In 2011, a jury was discharged from considering an attempted abduction charge<\/a> against murderer Levi Bellfield. <\/p>\n Bellfield\u2019s defence team successfully argued that the reporting of his conviction for the murder of Milly Dowler was so prejudicial that he would not receive a fair trial. Both the Daily Mail and the Daily Mirror were later found to have committed contempt in their reporting of the case<\/a>.<\/p>\n The law of contempt by publication attempts to ensure that trials are conducted fairly, and only according to evidence put forward and tested in court, rather than on the basis of opinion and conjecture made outside of court. <\/p>\n Put simply, a trial would not be fair if a jury\u2019s decision about a defendant\u2019s guilt or innocence was influenced by material they saw online, but which neither the prosecution nor defence were aware of or had the opportunity to challenge. <\/p>\n People found to be in contempt of court may be imprisoned for up to two years, receive an unlimited fine or both<\/a>.<\/p>\n There are three defences to contempt by publication. The first<\/a> is if those responsible for a particular publication were unaware and had no reason to suspect that proceedings were active. <\/p>\n
\nDowning Street has also warned against speculating because of the importance of protecting the \u201cintegrity\u201d of the investigation<\/a>.<\/p>\n
\n
\n
\n Read more:
\n Sarah Everard: social media and the very real danger of contempt of court<\/a>
\n <\/strong>
\n <\/em>\n<\/p>\n
\nRight to a fair trial<\/h2>\n
![\"The](\"https:\/\/counter.theconversation.com\/content\/287516\/count.gif\")
<\/p>\n