P*

From Asif ( Solicitor ) colleague of my sister. Hope it helps. Identification alone does not automatically establish contempt. The question under section 2 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 is whether publication created a substantial risk that active proceedings would be seriously prejudiced or impeded. Intention to prejudice the proceedings is unnecessary. The surrounding remarks could make the difference. Describing a juror’s perceived religion while suggesting bias, expressing hostility or encouraging an audience to target them could support an argument that the publication exposed the jury to pressure and endangered the trial. That is an application of the statutory test, rather than an automatic rule about mentioning religion. Intentional intimidation is a separate possibility. Section 51 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 requires proof of its specific elements, including intimidation and the relevant intention to interfere with justice. An offensive remark alone does not establish those elements. If he was publicly suggesting that a sitting juror could not judge him fairly because they were Muslim, there would be a stronger argument for contempt: the concern would be pressure on that juror and interference with the jury’s independence. That is my application of the legal test, rather than a finding that the threshold has been met. The clip could properly be brought to the trial judge’s attention for assessment, preserving the original recording, link and publication details. CPS guidance expressly says apparent interference with jurors should be drawn to the judge’s attention. You do not need to establish contempt before raising that concern.