A British police force has attempted to restrict press coverage of evidence presented in open court, raising fresh concerns about press freedom and the principle of open justice.
Hertfordshire Police emailed newspapers last week, urging them to comply with a voluntary press advisory issued during the high-profile trial of Kyle Clifford. The intervention, which appeared to treat non-binding guidance as an order, has sparked alarm over the role of law enforcement in press regulation.
Clifford pleaded guilty to the murders of his ex-girlfriend, Louise Hunt, 25, and her sister, Hannah Hunt, 28, whom he killed with a crossbow, as well as their mother, Carol Hunt, whom he stabbed to death. Last week, he was found guilty by a jury of raping Louise Hunt before her murder in July 2024.
The victims’ family had sought to prevent the publication of some material from the proceedings, particularly CCTV footage of their home and its surroundings. Their request was made via the Independent Press Standards Organisation (Ipso), the watchdog that regulates most of Britain’s national newspapers.
Ipso operates a privacy notice system, which allows individuals and organisations to request that editors withhold specific information. These notices were originally introduced to prevent media harassment – for instance, to stop journalists from besieging a grieving family’s home after a tragedy. They carry no legal force and do not override a journalist’s right to report on open-court proceedings.
If trial restrictions are necessary, such as for national security or witness protection, a judge may impose a legally binding order, which can be challenged. Parliament has also legislated in areas like rape trials, where victim anonymity is mandated by law.
Yet despite Ipso notices being strictly voluntary, Hertfordshire Police pressed news outlets to comply, treating guidance as if it carried the weight of an order.
In an email sent by the force’s corporate communications department, police wrote:
“We are writing to remind you of the Ipso notice below which has been issued. We are aware of some coverage going against this notice, and we ask you to please review your content that has been published to ensure it complies with the below.”
The email then reproduced the advisory notice originally circulated by Ipso ahead of the trial.
Ipso’s privacy notice system was intended as a safeguard against media harassment, helping families maintain privacy in deeply distressing situations. These notices typically ask that journalists refrain from knocking on the doors of families who have lost loved ones in horrific accidents or crimes, or that they respect requests for a private funeral. Such uses are generally regarded as benign and compassionate, as they do not prevent the press from reporting the news but instead set ethical boundaries for newsgathering. In this way, they align with Clause 4 of the Editors’ Code on handling grief sensitively.
As Ipso itself states, privacy notices exist to “prevent harassment and protect individuals” but do not “prevent reporting on matters of public interest, including court proceedings”.
Yet in this case, Hertfordshire Police went beyond merely passing on a request for sensitivity. Despite no judge imposing a reporting restriction, the force’s email urged editors to obscure or omit details from their coverage, as though the guidance carried legal weight.
A spokesman for Hertfordshire Constabulary has since insisted that: “At no stage did we attempt to restrict the media’s ability to report on open court proceedings. The Ipso privacy notice for the Hunt family explicitly acknowledges the rights of the press to report on the court case and we also worked with media outlets… to ensure they could report proceedings fairly and accurately throughout the trial.”
He added: “We circulated a reminder of the privacy notice following extensive publication by the media of images of Kyle Clifford together with Louise Hunt, which the notice had specifically requested the media not do.”
However, even a so-called reminder from law enforcement that refers to ‘ensuring compliance’ carries an implied authority. By contacting editors directly and urging them to review their content, Hertfordshire Police blurred the separation between law enforcement and press regulation, raising concerns that similar interventions could become more common if unchallenged.
Harry Miller, a former police officer and free speech advocate, told the Telegraph: “The police continually overreach. They think they have more authority than they do have. They have one job and that is to uphold the law.
“They are playing outside of their box yet again. They need to restrict themselves entirely to upholding the law.”
The case raises fresh concerns about Ipso’s role in court reporting.
In 2022, Ipso circulated a privacy notice similar to the one in the Clifford case at the request of a primary school teacher charged with slapping a horse, asking newspapers to refrain from photographing her outside court. The request, which carried no legal force, nonetheless drew criticism because attending a court and being photographed there is ordinarily part of open justice (especially since hearings in public places may be photographed outside).
According to judiciary guidance, for instance: “Fair, accurate and contemporaneous media reporting of proceedings should not be prevented by any action of the court unless strictly necessary.”
More troubling still, last year Ipso ruled against journalists who reported evidence given in open court. The press regulator upheld a complaint against the website Aberdeen Live for publishing a detailed description of a rape survivor’s reaction to the attack, even though that detail had been lawfully presented in court. In its ruling, the regulator deemed the report breached Clause 4 of the Editors’ Code of Practice, which states: “In cases involving personal grief or shock, enquiries and approaches must be made with sympathy and discretion and publication handled sensitively.” However, this clause also contains the important caveat that: “These provisions should not restrict the right to report legal proceedings.”
At the time, FSU General Secretary Toby Young told the Telegraph: “Ipso acknowledges that journalists’ right to report on court proceedings is an essential part of open justice and in the public interest. Why then is it seeking to curtail that right? How much detail to include in a newspaper report about proceedings in open court is an editorial judgment and not a matter for the regulator.
“I worry that if Ipso crosses the line in this area, what’s to stop it interfering in other editorial judgments?”
Mark Stephens, one of the UK’s leading media law experts and a partner at Howard Kennedy law firm, agreed, warning that the case could create “a slippery slope” if the regulator starts interfering in reporting on public court cases.
There’s more on this story here.
