By Thomas Kinsella

On the 13^th of March 2025, Jonathan Hall KC published the “Independent Review on Classification of Extreme Violence Used in Southport Attack on 29 July 2024”. Mr Hall has been the UK’s Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation since May 2019 and authored annual terrorism reports since then, as well as some standalone reports such as this one.

The majority of the report focuses on the current definition of terrorism, and it looks at the terrible events in Southport last year, as well as several other examples to help inform its recommendations. Although the report does make some reference to the importance of communicating with the public in a timely and effective manner there is no mention of the press, the professional media or The Sun anywhere throughout.

It was therefore strange to read the Sun’s reporting on the publication.

The headline read, “THE SUN SAYS Police must be far more open with the Press to stop infernos of speculation and dangerous lies on social media”. They claimed that the report stated that the “police simply have to be far more open with the Press” and stated that it wasn’t “The Sun saying so, though we agree. It’s the Government’s terrorism tsar Jonathan Hall”.

The Sun’s coverage delighted in this apparent endorsement of the press’ coverage of violent crime.  Unfortunately, however, it was a misrepresentation of what was actually said.

The reality is that the report only makes reference to the risks of disinformation on social media and how that can be avoided by thoughtful and timely communication by the Police (through unspecified channels) and fails to refer once to the press or The Sun.

The Sun seems to have interpreted this conclusion to support it working more closely with the police to prevent disinformation and potentially harmful information from spreading on social media in the wake of terrorist attacks.

It’s ironic that The Sun should complain about not working closely enough with the police, given its publisher’s history of improper and allegedly corrupt relationships with the Metropolitan Police Force (in particular, the activities of News of the World reporters who the Daniel Morgan Inquiry Panel found had likely sought to interfere in the Daniel Morgan murder investigation, and the career trajectories of several former senior police officers who ended up in News UK’s employment).

Not to mention their previous coverage following dreadful terrorist events, which shows that they can not be trusted to cover these incidents with the required sensitivity and ethical standards that are discussed in the report, or even follow Police instructions intended to keep the public safe.

‍

Hypocrisy after coverage of the Christchurch Attacks

One example of The Sun’s despicable coverage came following the terrible events on the 15th ​of March 2019 in Christchurch, New Zealand, where 51 people were killed and another 89 were injured. During the attack, the terrorist live-streamed their awful actions for viewers online, and the video was able to be captured by anyone watching for some time after, until Facebook were able to remove the content. The New Zealand police announced that they were aware of the video and requested that it not be shared under any circumstances.

Six hours after this request The Sun continued to host an edited version of the video on their website, available to be watched by all readers. The video was eventually removed but not after it was likely viewed by many visitors to the page, against the wishes of the Police.

Given this is how they have previously covered these sorts of events it seems incredibly disingenuous for The Sun to present themselves as the potential solution to thoughtful coverage of terrorist events, with the goal of preventing further harm to the public.

We now know that the Southport attacker watched videos of terrorist attacks, much like the ones shared by The Sun, hours before leaving the house to carry out his own terrible attack. The danger of sharing the videos of the Christchurch attacks should, therefore, be very clear, and yet The Sun ignored direct police instruction in search of clicks. They appear to have wished to distance themselves from the risks posed by social media following terrorist events, but it is clear from their past actions that they are little better.

Of course, The Sun and other national newspapers could differentiate themselves from social media in the same way that over 200 local and independent newspapers have done – by joining an independent regulator.  But this would require accepting standards of accuracy and accountability which, it seems, the title cannot abide.

‍