An inquiry into the horrific Southport murders of three young children has been called after the perpetrator pleaded guilty to all charges. While this is a welcome development, it raises questions about the Government’s motives, particularly given the likelihood that the outcome will result in calls for further censorship of public discourse.
However, the Government’s response to this guilty plea has revealed a troubling inconsistency. Keir Starmer invoked the principle of sub judice—the rule that ongoing legal matters should not be publicly discussed to avoid prejudicing court proceedings. At face value, this seems reasonable, but it begs scrutiny when contrasted with previous cases where this legal principle was seemingly ignored.
For example, following the Southport attack, riots erupted, and both Labour and the Prime Minister were quick to label the unrest as “far-right thuggery” and “racist in nature.” These statements effectively framed public perception and set the tone for investigations long before any legal conclusions were reached. Where was the cautionary application of sub judice then?
This selective approach to legal restraint is not an isolated incident. Tory and Labour governments have demonstrated a pattern of invoking or ignoring sub judice as it suits their narratives. Consider these examples:
Cases Where Sub Judice Was Overlooked:
- Grenfell Tower Tragedy (2017)
Politicians made strong declarations of “criminal negligence” well before the inquiry concluded, shaping public opinion and potentially influencing its findings. - Mark Duggan Shooting (2011)
Police and politicians labelled Duggan a “gang member” early in the investigation, establishing a narrative that influenced public perception long before the facts were established. - Julian Assange’s Extradition Case
Political figures openly supported Assange’s extradition and discussed his guilt despite the ongoing legal battle. This undermines claims that silence is required to ensure fairness in trials.
Cases Where Sub Judice Was Strictly Applied:
- The Grooming Gang Scandal
Despite the scale and severity of the crimes, public figures hesitated to comment, often citing “ongoing investigations” to avoid addressing the systemic failures involved. - Spy Cops Scandal
Efforts to uncover misconduct by undercover police officers infiltrating activist groups were stonewalled, with authorities citing sub judice to resist transparency.
A Pattern of Political Convenience
The discrepancies in these examples reveal a troubling trend: high-profile cases with significant political implications often prompt preemptive commentary, while less politically advantageous cases are cloaked in legal caution. This suggests that the principle of sub judice is less about justice and more about managing political narratives or avoiding accountability.
It is important to note that this critique is not about the accuracy of any specific statement but rather about the inconsistent application of legal principles. The principle of sub judice must be applied universally—either public figures are free to comment on all cases, or they should refrain entirely.
Conclusion: A Call for Consistency
The selective invocation of sub judice undermines public trust and highlights a broader issue of transparency. If the Government chooses not to disclose information about the murder of three innocent children under the guise of protecting judicial fairness, it cannot justify preemptive judgments in other cases, such as labelling individuals as “far-right thugs” or “racists” before their day in court.
Consistency in applying legal principles is essential to ensure public confidence in the justice system and the Government’s integrity. It’s time we held our leaders accountable and stopped allowing them to have their cake and eat it.
