In the eyes of every lawyer I’ve spoken to, Suella Braverman has overstepped the mark

Our home secretary doesn’t seem to understand the dangers of contempt of court, writes former chief prosecutor Nazir Afzal. What was she thinking, tweeting about Chris Kaba’s death?

A large number of armed officers from the Metropolitan Police have stepped back from firearms duties in the wake of a murder charge over the shooting death of (Chris Kaba INQUEST/PA) (PA Media)

A police officer has been charged with the murder of Chris Kaba in London last year. That’s all that can be said about the case, as it is “live” and any further comment is likely to impact the judge and jury’s decision making. Saying anything more could amount to contempt of court – and may lead to the Attorney General prosecuting you.

You might think that’s sufficient clarity to offer a deterrent to those on social media for them to minimise their commentary. Not so, for the home secretary, Suella Braverman – who tweeted a thread which expressed support for firearms officers who, she acknowledged, have a difficult job.

In one view (and that of every criminal lawyer I have spoken to) she has overstepped the mark by prejudging the case and thereby potentially prejudicing it. In another view, she is merely pointing out to firearms officers that she understands the incredibly difficult task they have and trying to provide reassurance as a number of them are contemplating handing in their “ticket” to use firearms.

It seems to me that the home secretary could have just as easily written privately to those representing officers who carry guns without resorting to such a dangerous public pronouncement.

It might surprise her critics, but her words carry weight. She holds one of the great offices of state: the one responsible for crime and policing. Then again, this is not the first Tory home secretary of recent times to fall foul of the protections put in place to ensure a fair trial.

Priti Patel very nearly derailed the prosecution of a human trafficker who was responsible for the deaths of 39 Vietnamese refugees in the back of his truck by using social media to prejudge the outcome of the prosecution.

Previously, Jeremy Hunt was reprimanded by a senior judge over a “highly inappropriate” tweet he sent during the manslaughter trial of a woman who died hours after having a C-section.

One of the most senior judges in the country, Sir Brian Leveson, has said: “… anyone posting a comment on a publicly available website which creates a substantial risk of causing serious prejudice faces the potential prospect of proceedings for contempt of court …”

Although section seven of the Contempt of Court 1981 Act gives the court jurisdiction to deal with contempt of this nature of its own motion, the almost invariable course would be for the matter to be referred to the Attorney General.

Herein lies a potential conflict of interest. Does anyone believe that a Tory attorney general in this current government would issue proceedings against a fellow minister: the home secretary, nonetheless? At the time of writing, she hasn’t even deleted it.

What does that mean for the integrity of our judicial process? What does that mean for justice itself?

Nazir Afzal OBE is the former chief crown prosecutor