Attorney General to address sub judice inquiry

20 Jan 2026News

The Procedure Committee will hear from Lord Hermer on the implications of the sub judice rule in Parliament

On Wednesday 21st January, the Procedure Committee will conduct its fourth oral evidence session regarding the sub judice resolution in the House of Commons. The session will feature the Attorney General, the Rt. Hon. Lord Hermer KC, who will share insights on how the sub judice rule affects legal proceedings. His extensive background in law positions him uniquely to address concerns about whether the rule imposes an undue limitation on the freedom of speech for parliamentarians. It may also delve into cases when parliamentary discussions could jeopardise ongoing trials and how social media influences MPs’ conversations about court matters.

This inquiry arises from a request by the Speaker to review the functioning of the sub judice resolution, which aims to maintain ‘comity’ between Parliament and the courts to ensure that court outcomes are not influenced by parliamentary discourse. As a platform for public discourse, Parliament must balance its role in discussing issues of national importance with the necessity of allowing courts to execute their functions without interference. The committee will assess if the resolution established in 2001 remains effective in this regard. The evidence session on 21st January will be broadcast live on Parliament Live at 14:45

Legal News desk contact: editorial@solicitorsjournal.com|

Latest Articles

Progress in cleaning up Companies House

A new report highlights ongoing improvements to the Companies House register aimed at tackling economic crime

Employment tribunal cases rising sharply

Recent Ministry of Justice figures reveal a significant increase in open Employment Tribunal cases and challenges faced by employers

SRA updates guidance for litigation supervision

The Solicitors Regulation Authority has enhanced its supervision guidelines to clarify litigation conduct after recent court rulings

Re Poundstretcher: cross-class cramdown survives even when six landlord classes say no

The Chancery Division sanctions Poundstretcher's restructuring plan despite six dissenting landlord classes, applying the Adler and Petrofac framework.

Ponsford v Sali: a property partnership's messy divorce shows why documentation wins partnership disputes

The Chancery Division takes a pragmatic, evidence based approach to untangling a property partnership built on undocumented cash dealings.

North Somerset District Council v Secretary of State: failing the flood sequential test is not the end of the story

The Planning Court confirms that a failed flood risk sequential test still gets weighed in the planning balance, not treated as an automatic refusal.

Thomas Armstrong (Aggregates) v Housing Secretary: when landfill buries a quarry's right to be reviewed

The Planning Court applies Pilkington and Hillside to find a 1954 quarry permission can no longer be revived under the ROMP regime.

Clerkenwell Lifestyle v HG Construction: be careful what you call "agreed" in extension of time correspondence

The TCC enforces a £955,943 adjudication award after rejecting a contractor's late attempt to recast email exchanges as a binding settlement.

Ward v Donnellan: when both sides lie, "no order for costs" is not a free pass

The Court of Appeal overturns a no order for costs ruling, finding a judge let a dishonest claimant off too lightly.

London Borough of Camden v BW: when a single missing fact can decide a capacity case

The Court of Protection finds an expert's failure to explore one consequence, losing a placement, was enough to undermine his capacity assessment.

Griffiths v Essex County Council: EAT clarifies causation in discrimination remedy awards and sends pension loss back for recalculation

A single act of indirect disability discrimination can ground a full loss of earnings award, even where a later constructive dismissal claim was framed only...