A High Court judge has criticised shadow justice secretary Robert Jenrick for a post on X during a high-profile murder trial, saying the comment was "ill thought through" and urging him to exercise caution amid concerns it might influence a jury.
Mr Justice Goose made the remark while overseeing the trial of Elias Morgan, who was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 45 years for the shooting death of father-of-three Lenny Scott. Lawyers in the case had raised fears in court that public commentary, including the social media post, could have a prejudicial effect on jurors. There was no finding by the court that Mr Jenrick was in contempt.
Mr Jenrick, who has not commented publicly on the judge's criticism, is the shadow to Lord Chancellor Shabana Mahmood, the cabinet minister responsible for safeguarding the independence of the courts. Speaking to Parliament's Constitution Committee, Ms Mahmood said no parliamentarian should be "risking a contempt and the possibility of a murderer walking free," stressing the need for elected officials to exercise restraint when cases are live.
The judge's intervention follows concerns aired during the Elias Morgan trial in north-west England, regarded by legal observers as one of the most serious recent murder cases in the region. Morgan, a convicted career armed robber, was convicted of murdering Lenny Scott after a trial in which the jury heard evidence relating to gangland activity and alleged attempts at corruption of a former prison officer who later refused to be compromised.
Legal experts say comments from public figures on active cases can create real risks to the administration of justice if they are perceived by jurors or potential jurors as undermining a fair and impartial process. Contempt of court law is designed to protect juries from external influences, and judges have the authority to admonish those whose remarks could interfere with ongoing proceedings.
The episode has prompted renewed discussion in Westminster about the boundaries for public commentary by politicians on matters sub judice. Parliamentary committees and legal authorities have in the past cautioned members of Parliament about commenting on live cases where juries are deliberating, noting that such remarks carry potential legal and constitutional consequences.
The BBC reported the judge's criticism on Wednesday. Officials at the Conservative Party and Mr Jenrick's office had not issued a response by the time of publication.