A top judge warned of contempt of court dangers after prosecutors said former home secretary Suella Braverman made “regrettable” comments that indirectly criticised the charging decision of a firearms officer ahead of his murder trial.
Before Martyn Blake’s case went to trial, a court hearing at the Old Bailey heard that a tweet from Ms Braverman, which said firearms officers “mustn’t fear ending up in the dock for carrying out their duties”, had been viewed more than six million times.
During a hearing at the Old Bailey in September last year, prosecutor Tom Little KC said the then attorney general Victoria Prentis had been informed about the tweets.
Mr Little said: “We asked for this case to be listed primarily because of our concern about the content of three tweets sent by the home secretary on Sunday morning which were aligned to an article in the Telegraph in relation to suggestions that a number of Metropolitan Police officers were refusing to carry guns.
The prosecutor said it then led to Met Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley responding to the announcement of a review and a large amount of publicity.
Ms Braverman’s tweets read: “We depend on our brave firearms officers to protect us from the most dangerous and violent in society.
“In the interest of public safety they have to make split-second decisions under extraordinary pressures.
“They mustn’t fear ending up in the dock for carrying out their duties. Officers risking their lives to keep us safe have my full backing and I will do everything in my power to support them.
“That’s why I have launched a review to ensure they have the confidence to do their jobs while protecting us all.”
Mr Little continued: “The prosecution is keen to draw a line under this.
“We’ve been in contact with the Attorney General. The Attorney General’s current view is that seeking to withdraw or remove the tweets now and or by further media advisory notice runs the risk of additional publicity, almost drawing attention to it.
“The prosecution remain concerned that everyone, and I do mean everyone, needs to be extremely careful about what is published in relation to matters of public concern.
“Caution is required before people do so and we sought to raise that with the court as is our obligation.
“We’re keen for a line to be drawn. Real concerns about firearms officers may be dissipating.
“There’s no criticism by us of subsequent reporting that occurred but it caused recirculation of tweets which is regrettable. We would hope going forward that this won’t be repeated.”
“Inevitably, every case in this court attracts a fairly high volume of publicity.
“The one thing we try to avoid is public debate of these decisions, public debate over whether someone has acted lawfully or indeed whether decisions made to prosecute an individual are right or wrong.”
He added: “It is incumbent on all of us to ensure anyone making any comments about this case, the same rules apply to this case as to any other case in crown courts in this country, both here and elsewhere. I would use this opportunity as a reminder to everyone of the rules and the importance of abiding by them.”
Addressing the prosecution, the judge said the then attorney general needed to “act appropriately if she is so advised”.
He added: “The court was asked to consider pre-trial publicity and the court reminded everyone of obligations of the contempt of court process and ensure that nothing is said which in any way could be thought to prejudice ongoing criminal proceedings.”
