Chris

He’s been arrested in connection with a criminal investigation. If newspaper reporting around that causes “substantial risk of serious prejudice or impediment” to a subsequent trial relating specifically to that case, then contempt of court has occurred, even if the man in question hadn’t been charged at the time.

The Act does not specifically ban the naming of him, but as naming him could lead to prejudicial reporting, newspaper editors are unlikely to do so unless there’s a clear public interest in doing so, and they believe they can do it in a very careful and controlled manner that they can robustly defend later on. In the case of a back-bench MP who is under suspicion and has been arrested for questioning but not charged, it’s probably not worth the risk - until the cloak of anonymity allows him to get re-selected by local party members who didn’t know what was going on. The story probably begins to take on a significance that’s worth the risk and effort of careful reporting with regards to the CCA at that point.