Jenrick criticised by judge for X post during murder trial

A High Court judge who oversaw one of the most serious murder trials in recent years in north-west England criticised shadow justice secretary Robert Jenrick for a social media post that could have potentially influenced a jury's decision.

Mr Justice Goose is reported to have described Jenrick's post as "ill thought through" and urged him to "exercise caution" amid fears, aired in court, about its potential impact on the trial of a gangland killer.

Elias Morgan, a career armed robber, was jailed for life with a minimum term of 45 years on Tuesday for shooting dead father-of-three Lenny Scott.

The former prison officer had refused years earlier to be corrupted by Morgan.

Jenrick, who has not commented, shadows the Lord Chancellor Shabana Mahmood, the cabinet minister who oversees the independence of the courts.

Speaking to Parliament's Constitution Committee on Wednesday morning, she said no parliamentarian should be "risking a contempt and the possibility of a murderer walking free". There was no finding by the court that Jenrick was in contempt.

On 2 July prosecution and defence lawyers in the Elias Morgan case appeared at Preston Crown Court to raise with Mr Justice Goose a post from Jenrick that they feared could have influenced jurors.

The Liverpool Echo had a reporter in court who first published the exchanges. The BBC has independently corroborated the account with a number of sources.

The court heard that Jenrick, a solicitor by background, had posted the following on X: "Lenny exposed corruption and took on the gangster controlling a prison wing. He received threats to his life, but he was left unsupported. Four years later he was shot dead. That will enrage any decent person. We need radical change, now."

The Echo reported that Caroline Goodwin KC, defence counsel for Morgan, told the judge that the post was in her analysis "appalling, outrageous and egregious" and that Jenrick "should know better".

"We ask he reflects carefully as a shadow lord chancellor should. We ask he thinks and he refrains from commenting further."

Prosecutor Alex Leach KC told the judge the post was "problematic" because it presented as fact matters of evidence which were for the jury to deliberate on.

Mr Justice Goose said Jenrick's post had been "ill thought through given it's an ongoing trial".

"I ask anyone who reports on this trial on social media to exercise caution and care before they post what they want to say. I hope the author of this message hears what I say and the reason for it."

The BBC understands that prosecution officials then took steps to ensure Jenrick was informed of the concerns and the post was later removed.

In English law, posts on social media can be deemed capable of prejudicing a jury - and therefore influencing the outcome of a trial.

There are very few instances of trials having ever been completely derailed by allegedly prejudicial public comment - and judges direct to juries to ignore media reports or comment outside of court.

However, the risk of jury prejudice is taken exceptionally seriously by judges and can in extreme situations lead to prosecutions.

There were no submissions in court that any jurors had actually seen the post or that they had been influenced and the judge indicated that the post's deletion would be the end of the matter.

On Wednesday, Mahmood told the constitution committee politicians of all stripes had to play a role in protecting public trust in the law.

"No parliamentarian should be risking a contempt and the possibility of a murderer walking free," she said.

"There are just some very important rules that all politicians with their huge platforms should bear in mind.

"It will be an absolute travesty of justice if somebody walks free from a murder charge because of social media activities and the desire to have a viral tweet. That is, and always will be, unacceptable."