Media Protocol User Guide

• Introduction
• The Open Justice Principle
• What does the Protocol cover?
• Making decisions about the release of material under the Protocol
  • Who counts as the media?
  • When might requests be refused?
  • The legitimate interests of others
  • Consideration of victims and witnesses
  • What information should be given to victims and witnesses?
  • Will we engage with a victim, victim’s family or witness?
  • What if the victim/family do not want the material to be released?
  • Who is responsible for discussing the issue with a victim, victim’s family or witness?
  • Specific categories of material
  • Footage/images where people may be identified
  • Prosecution documents read out in court
  • Prosecution documents not read out in court
  • Material shown during the prosecution opening
  • Photographs of injuries
  • Police custody photographs
  • Defence material
  • FAQs when considering requests
  • How does the protocol apply to sentencing hearings where the defendant pleaded guilty and so material has not been relied on in open court during a trial?
  • How do reporting restrictions affect decisions to release material?
  • What is the copyright position?
  • Legal professional privilege
  • What if a victim wants to do an exclusive deal with a media outlet?
  • What if the CPS and police disagree about the release of materials?
  • What is the process if media are unhappy about a decision not to provide material?
• Media briefings
• Issuing material
  • Timing
  • Who is responsible for providing material?
  • What happens when a defendant pleads guilty and the material is not shown in court?
  • How can material be shared?
• Further information

Introduction

The principle of open justice underpins the rule of law in England and Wales.

It is an important feature of our criminal justice system that it is normally administered in public and is open to public scrutiny. The media plays a vital role in informing the public about what is happening in our courts, and their access to information to fulfil that role is guaranteed by the law.

There is clear public interest in criminal proceedings. The joint protocol agreed by the CPS, police and the media cements our shared commitment to open justice. It sets out how requests from the media for material which has been relied upon in open court as part of the prosecution case will be dealt with for the purpose of reporting criminal trials. It seeks to strike a balance between the public interest reflected in the principle of open justice and the legitimate interests of others, such as victims of crime, witnesses and members of their families.

This guide is intended to assist police and CPS communications teams when planning to release prosecution material to the media, or when dealing with requests from journalists. It is also designed to give background to prosecutors and police officers who may be involved in decisions about releasing material, and to clarify for the media and wider public how we will apply the protocol. It reflects changes to relevant laws since the protocol was first agreed in 2005 and answers frequently asked questions. The protocol applies to proceedings in criminal courts, including youth courts.

The open justice principle

The general rule is that the administration of justice must be done in public, the public and the media have the right to attend all court hearings and the media is able to report those proceedings fully and contemporaneously. Any restriction on these usual rules will be exceptional and must be based on necessity. Transparency improves the quality of justice, enhances public understanding of the process, and bolsters public confidence in the justice system.

The joint media protocol was first agreed in 2005. It set out the principle that the media should have access to all relevant material wherever possible and at the earliest opportunity. This remains the case and has been reinforced by subsequent case law¹.

What does the protocol cover?

The central purpose of the protocol is to manage requests for prosecution information or material from a member of the media to the CPS or a police force for the purpose of reporting criminal proceedings held in open court – including youth courts, as soon as is practicable after publication is permitted.

It is not intended to cover other media requests, such as non-contemporaneous requests for material for documentaries, or non-media requests. Such requests will be considered separately by police forces and the CPS on a case-by-case basis. Accordingly, the protocol does not apply to:

• non-contemporaneous requests for material, e.g. for documentaries;
• non-media requests;
• requests for prosecution material not relied on in open court (for example, information that is withheld from the public by order of the court or if a statutory restriction applies);
• requests for material which was not part of the prosecution case;
• requests for material prior to trial.

The fact that material is not covered by the protocol does not mean that it cannot be provided to the media; rather, requests for such material will be separately considered on a case-by-case basis. Retention policies mean requests for historic material may not be possible to service.

We recognise that in Cape Intermediate Holdings Ltd v Dring [2019] UKSC 38 Lady Hale noted that the “practicalities” of granting the request are relevant and said that it is “highly desirable that the application is made during the trial when the material is still readily available”. Doing so will assist the CPS and police to service requests most effectively.

Making decisions about the release of material under the protocol

Who counts as media?

The protocol applies to accredited members of the media who hold a valid press card issued by the UK Press Card Authority. The UK Press Card is formally recognised by all broadcasting and written news media, by policing and the Ministry of Justice. Press officers may request details of a valid press card before providing material or allowing media into a press briefing. Any UKPCA card can be verified using the Hotline - 01430 456543.

It also includes those with a letter from the editor of an organisation covered by the regulator IPSO or Ofcom or similar.

Requests from individuals who do not hold a UK Press Card may be considered on a case-by-case basis. It is important to consider the credentials of the person or organisation making the request and whether they are bound by clear codes of practice or have access to legal advice on how they should cover criminal cases.

When might requests be refused?

The legitimate interests of others

The open justice principle is summarised by the Judicial College² as follows:

“The general rule is that the administration of justice must be done in public, the public and the media have a right to attend all court hearings in person, and the media is able to report those proceedings fully and contemporaneously³. The public has the right to know what takes place in the criminal courts and the media in court acts as the eyes and ears of the public, enabling it to follow court proceedings and to be better informed about criminal justice issues.”

However, the presumption in favour of granting access does not mean that the media are entitled to all material shown in the course of criminal proceedings. The Guardian News judgement set out that there may be “countervailing reasons” which outweigh the interests of open justice.

Decisions must be taken on a case-by-case basis, and disclosure may be of the whole or part of the material. Where appropriate material may be redacted.

Reasons for refusal of access may include, amongst others:

• the interests of justice;
• the interests of victims, witnesses and their families;
• the interests of defendants;
• the interests of national security,
• public interest immunity.

Consideration of victims and witnesses

The rights of the victim, including the family of any deceased, are widely recognised as an important part of any criminal proceedings. The police and CPS have an important role in making sure victims receive appropriate support and information throughout their experience of the criminal justice process, as set out in the Victims Code. However, although any views of victims, victims’ families and witnesses should be considered, the decision whether to release material rests with the police and the CPS. Where there is dispute, the CPS Director of Communications will make a final decision.

What information should be given to victims and witnesses? 

It is important that victims, witnesses and families are aware that under the principle of open justice, the presumption is that prosecution material which has been relied upon in open court will be supplied to the media on request unless there is an exceptional reason not to do so. This general principle should be explained by police to victims, witnesses and families in simple and accessible language.

Families of the deceased should also be told about the likely media reporting in advance of court proceedings and offered appropriate media handling support by the police force comms team. This should involve factual, neutral advice about the benefits and challenges of different approaches to media engagement.

Will we engage with a victim, victim’s family or witness?

Careful consideration should be given to instances when the release of material may impact on the legitimate interests of the victim, family or witness. Examples include:

• When harm to the victim is being shown;
• The victim is shown in a vulnerable position;
• The safety of the victim or witness could be compromised; or
• The material is likely to cause considerable distress.

What if the victim/family do not want the material to be released?

If victims, witnesses or families have strong concerns about the release of material which has been used in court, these concerns should be relayed to the force and CPS communications teams.

Decisions about the release of material following such concerns will be taken based on the individual circumstances of each case. The general principle of open justice must be carefully balanced against legitimate interests such as the right of the victim or a deceased’s family to respect for their private life.

The vulnerability and safety of victims, witnesses and the family of a deceased should be important factors in decision-making. Examples of where this will be a consideration include footage that shows acts of violence or explicit photographs. In addition, the police may have an operational reason to withhold prosecution material, for example if its release could lead to the identification of a witness and put them at risk. However, investigators and prosecutors must not take moral or editorial decisions about what they consider the press require for the purposes of reporting. Consideration should be given to whether material can be appropriately redacted to address concerns of victims or their families.

If, following consideration of the views of a victim, witness or family, a decision is taken not to release material, the CPS or police must explain the reason for this to the media.

Even where the police and CPS refuse to release material, the media have the right to apply to the court to order the release of material. This should also be communicated to victims, witnesses and family members.

Who is responsible for discussing the issue with a victim, victim’s family or witness?

The police are normally responsible for liaising with the victim or witness through a Family Liaison Officer. However, depending upon the specific circumstances of a case there may be occasions where it is appropriate for the CPS to discuss the issue with a victim or witness.

Specific categories of material

The protocol sets out a non-exhaustive list of the types of material most commonly requested. The protocol states:

a. Prosecution material which should normally be released to the media where it has been relied upon by the prosecution in open court includes:

• Maps and other diagrams;
• Images/video of the defendant(s) (including custody photographs);
• Images/video showing scenes of crime as recorded by police after the event;
• Images/video of items exhibited in court (e.g. weapons, clothing, drug hauls or stolen goods);
• Sections of transcripts of interviews/statements read out in court;
• Images/video showing reconstructions of the crime; and,
• Social media content, such as relevant messages from the defendant, or posts which illustrate the offence.

b. Prosecution material which may be released after consideration by the CPS in consultation with the police and relevant victims, witnesses and family members where it has been relied upon by the prosecution in open court includes:

• Images/video showing the victim(s);
• Video and audio recordings of police interviews with defendants, victims and witnesses;
• Statements of victims and witnesses; and
• Audio of 999 calls.

Further guidance on particular categories of material is set out below.

Footage/images where people may be identified

Different considerations apply depending on what the footage or images show, and who is included. The following general guidance applies, subject to the consideration of other legal or victim issues:

• Footage which shows individuals who are granted anonymity: There are specific circumstances where victims, witnesses or defendants are automatically granted anonymity. These include victims of sexual offences and youth defendants or youth witnesses and complainants. Press officers must not share any footage or image which is capable of leading to the identity of individuals who have been granted anonymity. If the decision is taken that the footage should be shared, it must be edited first (eg. faces blurred) to ensure that the individuals cannot be identified.
• If the footage/image shows an incident in a public place or at a public event eg. CCTV footage which shows a fight in the street: There is no legal requirement to blur the faces of individuals who are not involved in the incident. However, depending on the specific incident shown, you may make a judgement that it is reasonable to blur faces prior to releasing the material or request that media outlets do this prior to publication or broadcast. Many publications will do this in line with their own editorial guidelines.
• If the footage/images are taken in a private place eg. police body worn video taken inside a home: this could constitute a breach of privacy and material should not be released in which individuals other than the defendant may be identified. Material may be released after being suitably blurred. The prosecution team can advise whether the material was redacted before being shown in court.

Prosecution documents read out in court

A document that has been read out in full should generally be provided unless legitimate interests such as those set out above mean that it should be withheld or redacted. Documents which may be read out in full include opening notes – both for trial and sentencing hearings, agreed witness statements and formal admissions. Note that where a witness gives live evidence, their witness statement will generally not be part of the evidence relied on in open court, and so should not be provided.

Where only part of a document has been read out in court, prosecutors may decide that only that part should be provided to the press and the remainder should be redacted unless it has been relied upon in court. This will need to be confirmed with lawyers prior to release.

Where all or part of an ABE (Achieving Best Evidence) interview or pre-recorded cross-examination or re-examination is admitted as the evidence of a prosecution witness, that recording will be prosecution evidence. However, these measures will be used where the witness is in a vulnerable category and/or due to their fear or distress about giving evidence. Accordingly, the legitimate interests of the witness will generally mean that the recording should not be provided.

The CPS may release the prosecution opening note in advance to assist accurate reporting in court. Please note the decision for timings of the release of this rests with counsel, however, CPS press office will represent media’s wishes to have this as early as possible.

This must always be clearly marked with the following disclaimer:

• It is provided to you ‘on a check against delivery’ basis. Information it contains is not to be used unless used or referred to in open court and reporting is permissible.
• As with what is said in court hearings, responsibility for complying with the Contempt of Court Act 1981 rests with the recipient.
• Therefore, not all information supplied in the case summary will be reportable, including but not limited to previous convictions, reporting objections to bail, applications for bail and rulings on them and anything else that breaches section 52A of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and all prevailing law.
• If in doubt, media should seek their own legal advice on what can be reported.
• You should check with the court as to whether any reporting restrictions are in place in this case.
• It is for the use only of the person who has requested it – and is not for onward transmission.

Hard copies of the opening note may be handed out to reporters in court. The CPS may also agree to share electronically to accredited media on the undertaking that it is to assist their understanding of the prosecution case, and not for quoting if the reporter is not in court to verify that it has been delivered. Care should also be taken by the media before publication to ensure that counsel has delivered that part of the opening referred to by the time of publication.

Prosecution documents not read out in court

There may be good reasons not to provide all or part of some prosecution documents which are not read aloud in court because of their confidential nature, such as some medical reports or victim personal statements. In these cases, the legitimate interests of others in maintaining confidentiality are likely to outweigh the interests of open justice; this may apply even if the court has made reference to the document or quoted from it in open court⁴.

However, documents relied on by the prosecution may sometimes be provided to the media even though they have not been read out in court. For example, this may apply to prosecution skeleton arguments, the content of the case summary provided to the court as part of its duty to serve the initial details of the prosecution case (IDPC) in advance of the first hearing, or written submissions. These may be provided to media for the purposes of writing news background pieces but on the understanding they should not be used verbatim until such time that they can be legally reported eg at the end of the trial.

The media are expected to be aware of the limitations on the use of such material, for example that legal arguments held in the absence of the jury must not be reported before the conclusion of the trial⁵.

Because of the complications arising in such cases, those making decisions as to whether such material should be released should consult with the prosecutor.

Material shown during the prosecution opening

Material shown during the prosecution opening has not been formally adduced into evidence. However, unless there are reporting restrictions, the media may report what has been said and shown during the opening. Accordingly, material shown to the jury during the opening may be provided to assist with fair and accurate reporting. However, this is subject the usual exceptions discussed above, and any decision to issue material at this stage should be taken following discussion with the prosecutor in the case to avoid the risk of prejudice to the trial. A concern as to the risk of prejudice can arise when footage of an incident has not been seen by a Prosecution witness and its publication (after it has been played in opening the case) would create the risk of that witness seeing the footage before they give evidence in relation to what can also be seen on that footage.

Photographs of injuries

Subject to the victim considerations set out above, these may be released.

Police custody photographs

Unless relied on in open court by the prosecution, requests for police custody photographs should be referred to the police. As the legal copyright owner, they are responsible for releasing an offender’s custody photograph.

Guidance for police is set out in the College of Policing Authorised Professional Practice on Media and Communications.

Defence material

The CPS/the police have no obligation to release defence material.

The media should contact the defence if they would like access to defence material.

FAQs when considering requests

How does the protocol apply to sentencing hearings where the defendant pleaded guilty and so material has not been relied on in open court during a trial?

When a judge is sentencing a defendant who has pleaded guilty, the primary material they will rely on will be the oral submissions of the prosecution and defence advocates. The open justice principle will generally be satisfied by access to the courtroom. The fact that the prosecution submissions will be based on underlying evidence does not mean that the judge will have viewed the evidence or that such evidence needs to be provided under the open justice principle.

However, where material is specifically relied on by the prosecution in open court, then the same principles apply as for material relied on at trial and it may be released subject to consideration of the legitimate interests of others. This may apply, for example, where images have been handed to the judge or video footage has been played during the sentencing hearing.

Some types of material are specific to sentencing hearings:

• Victim personal statements (VPS): these are frequently read out in court in whole or in part, either by the victim or by a third party on their behalf, including by the prosecutor. In such cases, the contents may be reported to the media, and victims should be informed of this in advance as it may be relevant to their decision as to whether they would like their VPS read out. In some cases the VPS may also include a photograph of the deceased that is personal and not directly related to the trial proceedings. In these instances the family should be consulted about the release of this image.
• Reports such as pre-sentence reports or medical reports: these are typically court documents rather than prosecution documents, and as such are not covered by the protocol. Requests for such material should be directed to the court. In any event, they will usually be confidential, even where they have been referred to or quoted from in court, and would not be provided⁶.
• Material relied on by the defence alone during sentencing hearings, such as character reference: this is not prosecution material and as such is not covered by the protocol. Requests for such material should be directed to the defence or court.

Where it is necessary to release material under the open justice principle, this will amount to lawful processing under UKGDPR.

How do reporting restrictions affect decisions to release material?

While the general principle of open justice is central to the rule of law, there are circumstances when reporting restrictions apply which can be either statutory or imposed by a court order. Automatic reporting restrictions include those that prevent the publication of information that could identify a youth witness, victim or defendant in the youth court. Complainants of a wide range of sexual offences are also given lifetime anonymity under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992. This now also applies to complainants in offences under s.2 Modern Slavery Act 2015.

The procedure for making reporting restrictions in criminal cases is covered by Part 6 of the Criminal Procedure Rules and the Judicial College has published useful guidance: Reporting Restrictions in the Criminal Courts (July 2023). Discretionary reporting restrictions also include orders under section 4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, which postpone the publication of reports that could create a real risk of serious prejudice to proceedings; they are often imposed where the reporting could impact on the fairness of future linked trials.

Where reporting restrictions are in place, material should not be released where publication of that material would breach those restrictions. However, where the only reporting restriction is an order under section 4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 postponing the publication of reports, material may be shared with media under embargo for publication when the Court lifts the restriction. It is the media’s responsibility to ensure that what they publish complies with the law. The decision on what to publish rests with the media. 

What is the copyright position?

Copyright cannot be given as a reason not to provide prosecution material to the media: section 45 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 states that copyright is not infringed by anything done for the purposes of judicial proceedings or for the purposes of reporting on those proceedings (other than copying another published report of proceedings).

Legal professional privilege/Public Interest Immunity (PII)

Requests for material covered by LPP or PII on analogous grounds may be declined in all cases, although the issue is highly unlikely to arise in respect of material relied on in open court.

What if a victim wants to do an exclusive deal with a media outlet?

There have been rare occasions where a victim has objected to material being released because they want to pursue an exclusive media arrangement. This runs contrary to the stated aim of the protocol to achieve openness in reporting criminal proceedings. Material should not be given on an exclusive basis.

What if the CPS and police disagree about the release of materials?

Decisions may be finely balanced, particularly if the concern relates to consideration of victim issues. The CPS has the final say over whether to release materials during a trial but should take into account the views of the police. Where it is not possible to reach agreement through discussion at a local level, consult the CPS Director of Communications, who may decide to seek legal advice.

What is the process if media are unhappy about a decision not to provide material?

The protocol includes an appeal process, whereby the media can refer requests to the CPS Director of Communications for consideration.

The decision may take into account a number of factors including legal issues, representations on behalf of the victim or victim’s family, from prosecutors as well as concerns raised by police.

The media may also approach the trial Judge to request material. There is a process set out in Part 5 of the Criminal Procedure Rules for this. If the Judge determines that the material should be released, the CPS or police should comply as quickly as possible.

Media briefings

To help the media to understand a prosecution and inform reporting, consideration should be given to holding a pre-trial or pre-verdict briefing. These briefings provide an opportunity for prosecutors and police officers to answer questions and explore potential issues in advance of the end of a trial, and they can help improve public understanding of the work of policing and the CPS.

There are several factors which may influence decision-making around media briefings and will help to determine the timing of the briefing – which may be pre-trial, pre-verdict or pre-sentencing, whether it is held jointly with other criminal justice partners, and the information which will be provided. An overview of these considerations is set out below.

• To aid accuracy in media reporting and dispel misinformation/disinformation; the evidence in some cases can be especially complex and a briefing can help media to accurately report a case which is in the public interest. A briefing can also help to tackle the spread of misinformation and disinformation by ensuring that media have the facts of a case to assist with accurate reporting.
• To assist media understanding of a particular issue; the CPS conducts its prosecutions openly and transparently through the criminal courts. However, due to the way criminal courts work there can be gaps in knowledge, and media can benefit from a deeper understanding of the end-to-end conduct of a prosecution. Proper engagement with media around trial issues, for example the release of evidential material, can reassure media, aid open reporting of a trial, and avoid the need for media applications for evidential material direct to court, which improves efficiency for all parties. 
  Linked to this, there may be a requirement for some information to be embargoed until an agreed point in the trial – often upon verdict. A briefing can help to set out related issues clearly to help media understand the rationale for the embargo and report matters accurately and contemporaneously upon this lifting.
• To promote understanding of the roles of policing and prosecution; a media briefing can help to set out clearly the role of both policing and the prosecution in investigating, charging and prosecuting a case to improve public understanding and confidence in the criminal justice process.
• Avoiding prejudice to a trial; The law on publication of potentially prejudicial material in criminal proceedings is governed by the Contempt of Court Act 1981. Sections 1 and 2 set out the “strict liability” rule, which is that following certain events, including an arrest, and until the conclusion of proceedings, it is a contempt of court to publish anything to the public which creates a substantial risk that the course of justice in the proceedings in question will be seriously impeded or prejudiced, even if there is no intent to cause such prejudice. This law applies to individuals, media organisations, policing, other government departments, and the CPS. 
  The CPS has a strong interest in seeking to prevent the release of prejudicial information, since it has the responsibility of conducting the prosecution and wants to ensure that the trial can safely proceed without being delayed or stopped by the trial judge because prejudicial material has been read or seen by the jury ahead of the trial. 
  Considerations about what can be released in a briefing should be discussed between policing and the CPS to identify what information is in the public interest and will help the media to report a case accurately, while avoiding the risk of substantial prejudice to the trial.
• The duty to uphold the right to a fair trial; Section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) place a duty on all public authorities, including the CPS and courts, to uphold the right to a fair trial. This means that even if something is considered contempt or might cause a trial to be stopped, the CPS must still ensure that the individual's right to a fair trial is not violated. This duty will influence decision-making about what information can be provided to media in a briefing.
• Police investigations; We will always consult with police partners about holding media briefings relating to criminal proceedings. In cases where police may be unable to hold or take part in a media briefing the CPS will take great care to understand the reasons why in order to avoid affecting ongoing police investigations and other sensitive operational matters. Reputational harm for policing should not be a factor in decision-making and in many cases public confidence can be restored if a part of the Criminal Justice System can step forward where another cannot.
• Propriety and victim handling; As part of the criminal justice system the CPS should ensure it is presenting relevant information to courts before it is published by the media in line with our obligations under the Criminal Procedure Rules. The CPS should also ensure that victims are aware of significant information to be shared with the media, except in exceptional circumstances or where they are not parties. Media briefings are able to give journalists information ready for publication, including matters which are ‘agreed facts’, pleas of which the facts have been agreed in court, and therefore are ready to share with media once revealed in open court.

Approach to briefings

Briefings can take a number of forms and careful consideration should be given to the timing of these, whether they are held on a embargoed basis before the start of a trial or after the trial has started but before a verdict is given. Briefings can also be held after a verdict has been reached but before sentencing has taken place. The timing will be determined by consideration of the factors set out above.

Non-reportable briefings: It will be rare for the CPS to hold a non-reportable briefing, where what is said to media is never to be reported or repeated. However, there may be occasions where a request is made for a vital piece of information exchange in this manner. This could include requests for details about operational matters to do with a trial where media want to understand how the case will run knowing that reporting these details would be in contempt.

Embargoed but reportable briefings: More common will be embargoed briefings – media engagements where information is shared which can be used, attributed to specific spokespeople, or published, but with the proviso that it is not used until a date where it is legally safe to do so. This is most commonly after it has been read out or shown in open court, contempt of court has lifted and media are free to report information which has informed the decision of the court. Indemnity agreements should be signed in advance to ensure media understand this approach and abide by it. Where embargoed briefings take place mid-trial, usually ahead of the ending of a trial, briefings may set out the context, recap the CPS case in court for journalists who have not been able to attend, provide a summary of the evidence shown in the case, including video or images, and give comment on the case.

In the event of a Not Guilty (NG) verdict, the material will not be usable under the terms of the embargoed briefing.

The CPS should be clear on the terms of an embargo, where partial or split verdicts may render some material unusable and other parts usable, being clear with media which relate to which.

Agreements are designed to ensure the media understand the reasons for embargoes, and the legal risk of reporting material from embargoed briefings if NG verdicts are reached.

The CPS will not ask media to sign non-disclosure agreements, which are by their very nature, designed to block or stop reporting on matters of public interest.

When does an embargo lift?

It should be made clear at the outset whether an embargo is designed to lift at conviction or sentence.

Legally it is correct that information shared under embargo, which has been relied upon by the prosecution in open court, is safe to be published at the point of conviction where all verdicts are completed.

Hung verdicts will mean that a retrial is possible and the terms of an embargo may mean media need to show caution to comply with the embargo terms, and contempt of court itself.

However, there will be some rare occasions when the CPS will be unable to lift the embargo at conviction. These can include surprise mid-trial pleas where a basis of plea has yet to be established, and comment from prosecutors on the basis of a Guilty verdict can fall short of the plea offered.

If families have yet to be made aware of the pleas an embargo may need to be held for longer but the CPS should ensure families are aware generally of media engagement.

Wherever possible the CPS should be clear at the outset to avoid giving reportable information whose release is then frustrated by factors which could include those set out.

CPS advice to police

Police may have specific operational reasons for holding a media briefing, explained in College of Policing guidance, which can include public safety and appeals for public assistance. The CPS should be consulted on the risk of prejudice to any criminal justice proceedings presented by the release of information in a briefing. Policing can seek its own legal advice on whether a publication will amount to contempt. However, this advice would need to consider the risk of prejudice to the trial and given our role and responsibility for conducting the trial, we would expect our advice on that risk to prevail.

Indemnity agreement template

Consideration should be given as to whether an embargo agreement is required. If one is required, it should have signed agreement from the media and should be retained for audit purposes. 

Download the current indemnity form

Download the embargo agreement template

Issuing material

Timing

The central purpose of the protocol is to assist with contemporaneous reporting of criminal proceedings. The issue of contemporaneous reporting is an important one for the media because it gives them the protection of absolute privilege. This means that it covers reports which run as soon as is practicable after publication is permitted.

Prosecution material should generally only be released after it has been relied on by the prosecution during a trial or sentencing hearing. (As set out above, an exception may be made for opening notes and case summary documents.) In some cases, material may be issued under an embargo which lifts at the point at which it is adduced into evidence.

It is important to confirm with someone from the prosecution team precisely what material has been relied on before releasing it. That could be a CPS lawyer, prosecution counsel, paralegal officer or a police officer in court. These checks should be made as soon as possible, although there may be a delay when all parties are involved in the ongoing trial. Press officers should log the details of the person who confirmed that the material may be released.

The media are responsible for ensuring the accuracy and legal basis for their own reporting. CPS and police press officers may issue prosecution material, once it has been relied on in open court, at any point during the trial, and, if there is a conviction, at sentencing.

Who is responsible for providing material?

The CPS and police share responsibility for providing prosecution materials in line with the protocol. Good communication between the two parties will help to identify who is best placed to manage a request. There may be practical reasons why one is better placed to assist, such as easier access to the material requested or greater capacity to deliver material in a timely way taking into account other operational demands.

In cases where it is anticipated that there will be significant media interest, it is good practice for police force and CPS press officers to agree in advance the approach to managing the release of material, which could be done under an embargoed basis. It is helpful to draw up a schedule of material for release, agree the clearance process and put in place an agreed method of distribution.

In a high-profile case, there may be a significant demand from media for all material shown in court which can place a burden on the organisation providing the material. Police forces and the CPS will work collaboratively to expedite access but, in recognition of the practicalities of providing information, the media will assist by making targeted requests and doing so, wherever possible, when the trial is ongoing and the material is still readily available. It may not be possible to deliver all material on the same day as shown to the jury but press offices will endeavour to do so.

What happens when a defendant pleads Guilty and so the material is not shown in court?

The protocol is clear that the same principles apply – if the material has been provided to the sentencing judge to inform sentencing, even if not shown/read in open court because the defendant has pleaded guilty prior to trial. However, the individual circumstances of the case will be considered when determining what may be released to the media to ensure that only material informing the decision of the court is published.

Can material be issued on an exclusive basis to specific media outlets?

No. All eligible material must be made available equally.

How can material be shared?

Material which is appropriate for release may be shared with the media by any suitable means. Most often this will be electronically, via email, a digital transfer service or a password protected website.

In some exceptional instances, for instance to aid contemporaneous reporting, it may be necessary to share unedited material with the media on the explicit basis they edit this before publication to remove anything sensitive or which breaches the requirements of the protocol or reporting restrictions.

It is the media’s responsibility to ensure that what they publish complies with the law. The decision on what to publish rests with the media.

Further information

The following guidance and policies may be of interest.

• Criminal Procedure Rules 2025 and Criminal Practice Directions 2023

• College of Policing: Authorised Professional Practice: Media Relations

• Judicial College: Reporting Restrictions in the Criminal Courts 

• HM Courts & Tribunals Service: Staff guidance on supporting media access to courts and tribunals

• HM Courts & Tribunals Service Reporters’ Charter

• HMCTS702_Reporters_Charter_A4P_v6_Nov_25__2_.pdf

• The Ofcom Broadcasting Code 

• Editors’ Code of Practice 

• The Code of Practice for Victims of Crime in England and Wales