Considering the terrorism charges against Axel Rudakubana, Speaker of the House of Commons, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, yesterday issued a strict warning to MPs, stressing “it is paramount that nothing is said in this House which could prejudice a fair trial or risk it being abandoned.”
It essentially barred all discussion on Rudakubana under threat of the ‘Judiciary Resolution’. The sub judice rule prevents members from talking about active court cases despite parliamentary privilege technically allowing the House to speak on any subject.
What exactly members could have said to influence proceedings that others wouldn’t have in the media or online remains unclear. Yet the effect was clear—it prevented our elected representatives from speaking about a case of national concern.
During Prime Minister’s Questions, which shortly followed, Reform MP Richard Tice asked Starmer a general question on terror. He evaded, citing the Hoyle's comments. Seemingly, just talking about terror could constitute prejudice.
In August, however, Starmer openly characterised Southport protestors/rioters as engaging in “far-right thuggery,” with Home Secretary Yvette Cooper referencing “far-right extremist organising” on Sky News the next day.
Later that month, the Home Office posted on X, calling the same protestors/rioters “criminals” before their trials:
Yesterday, Starmer further implied that commenting on Rudakubana undermines the police and prosecutors doing a "very difficult job". "All cases", he said, should be treated in this way.
Yet, again, he had no problem commenting on the Southport protestors/rioters—very loudly and very publicly.
Did he then undermine the police and prosecutors doing a "very difficult job" and prejudice their proceedings?
It’s true that many Southport protestors/rioters pleaded guilty to “stirring up racial hatred”, but Starmer’s “far right thuggery” comments came before the vast majority had yet to plead or be tried.
Take case of Mark Heath. Heath, charged with posting “threatening, abusive or insulting” content, was acquitted of “stirring up racial hatred” by a jury just three days ago.
Authorities went to the arduous extent to charge and prosecute Health because he described the Southport child murders as a "tipping point”. Additionally falsely claiming that the attacker was a failed asylum seeker who the Labour Party stopped from being deported.
When asked by his barrister if he intended to stir up racial hatred, he replied, "Not at all. I was just commenting on what I had heard.” "Taking our country back means taking the borders back. That's me having an opinion… The people that were rioting, in my opinion, are stupid. I condemn them 100%.” Heath added.
Then, there’s the question of Starmer directly impacting prosecutions.
In August, an anonymous source told The Times Starmer was concerned about the justice system’s handling of protest cases, fearing it might not act “quickly and decisively.”
The same source said, “He leaned heavily on the justice system… He knew people needed to see action to reinforce the political message that rioting wouldn’t be tolerated.”
Another insider noted Starmer used the same “playbook” from the 2011 riots, urging swift court processes to deter protestors. An effort that resulted in dozens and dozens of those 2011 rioters successfully appealing their sentences.
“Operational independence” in British policing is a concept often cited to contest the perception of political interference. Originating from Lord Denning’s 1968 ruling that a chief constable is “answerable to the law and to the law alone,” operational independence remains undefined in law, creating an ambiguous boundary between police autonomy and political influence.
Ideally, senior officers should act on their professional judgment and later be accountable for their decisions, but political influence often blurs these lines in practice.
The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 sets out clearer boundaries, mandating ministers to protect judicial independence, prohibiting government officials from swaying judicial decisions. There seems to be ambiguity around what amounts to swaying or influence, however.
The Crown Prosecution Service also states: “We work openly with, but cannot be directed by, democratically elected representatives, such as Police and Crime Commissioners and Members of Parliament”.
To what extent Starmer and members of his cabinet are guilty of breaching these rules and laws, we do not yet know. Certainly, there needs to be an independent investigation if we are to find out.
One thing is for certain; Britain’s two most senior politicians are applying double standards again.
Perhaps their silence on Rudakubana’s terrorism charges is less a case of fearing to prejudice his trial than it is of fearing the backlash from concealing information about him.
Do you think if things stay the way they are our best days are ahead of us?
Are you going to sit down and watch as our media/government officials push for yet more invasive, authoritarian, censorious policy?
If you want to do something today to help change that, you can opt for a paid subscription and help citizen journalists like me attempting to stop it…
Did Starmer Prejudice Proceedings Then?