A 25-year-old convention preventing MPs referring to live court cases in the Houses of Parliament remains fit for purpose, a parliamentary committee has concluded.

In March 2025, the Speaker of the Commons, Lindsay Hoyle, asked the Procedure Committee – a 16-strong group appointed by the house to consider its practice – to review the sub judice resolution following concerns raised about the rule by MPs after the Southport attacks in July 2024. 

The resolution prevents MPs from referring to active legal proceedings in criminal or civil courts, inquests or tribunals, in the House of Commons. The speaker can, however, waive the resolution on issues of major public importance.

The Procedure Committee’s report concluded that the rule works effectively as it is, describing it as 'a necessary and proportionate restriction which balances the freedom of speech of MPs and judicial independence'.

The findings come despite Hoyle’s request for a review 'to better reflect changes to the legal system, the evolution of devolution in the UK and the wider social media context since the current resolution was adopted in 2001'.

Hoyle as speaker enabled a discussion on the Southport attacks in March 2025, after the man who murdered three girls had pleaded guilty to all charges, but prior to his being sentenced – so when proceedings were still active. 

Procedure Committee chair Cat Smith MP said: 'Parliament must remain relevant in discussions of national importance. The ability for MPs to speak freely on topical matters is of the utmost importance, but we must do so in a way that doesn’t prejudice matters that are before the courts.

'We found that the sub judice resolution maintains this delicate balance and is effective in its current form and works in practice. The resolution is flexible enough that it gives the chair wide discretionary powers to issue waivers to discuss issues of public interest. This worked well in the case of the Southport attacks and in other circumstances.'

The committee recommended 'only minor changes' to the resolution, to reflect the wider legal landscape.

The rule applies in both houses of parliament, with each house having its own sub judice resolution in place in near identical terms. 

Smith added: 'We also understand the importance of ensuring that both Houses of Parliament remain in lockstep on this matter, and recommend that our counterparts on the House of Lords’ Procedure and Privileges Committee take a view on our recommendations before they are adopted by either House.'