Judge in case of former X Factor singer accused of murdering influencer ‘rival’ in ‘road rage attack’ warns social media commentators they face jail – as supporters for victim and suspect shout ‘love you’ in court.
A judge has warned that people who publish prejudicial social media commentary about the murder trial of former X Factor finalist Gabrielle Carrington could be held in contempt of court and jailed. She stressed that the case must be decided by a jury on the evidence, after supporters of both Carrington and influencer Klaudia Zakrzewska shouted messages in court.
Carrington, 29, denies murdering Zakrzewska, 32, and causing grievous bodily harm with intent to a second person. Prosecutors say Zakrzewska was struck by a car outside a Soho nightclub in April and died in hospital days later; Carrington was initially charged with attempted murder before the charge was changed. The article says Zakrzewska had nearly 260,000 Instagram followers and that Carrington had been involved in an ongoing dispute with her.
- Judge warns online commentators they could face jail for contempt.
- Gabrielle Carrington denies murder and grievous bodily harm charges.
- Klaudia Zakrzewska died after being struck by a car in Soho.
New here? Start with this
Gabrielle Carrington is a 29-year-old former X Factor finalist, while Klaudia Zakrzewska was a 32-year-old social media influencer with nearly 260,000 Instagram followers. In April, Zakrzewska was struck by a car outside a nightclub in Soho and died in hospital several days later. Carrington is accused of deliberately hitting Zakrzewska with her vehicle in what prosecutors describe as a road rage incident, though she denies the charge.
The two women had an ongoing dispute before the incident. Carrington faces charges of murder and causing grievous bodily harm with intent to a second person who was also injured when struck by the car. She was initially charged with attempted murder before prosecutors upgraded the charges following Zakrzewska's death.
The case has attracted considerable public and social media attention, which prompted the judge to warn that those publishing prejudicial commentary online could face contempt of court charges. The judge stressed that the case must be decided by the jury based solely on the evidence presented in court.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
The judge's warning reflects a fundamental principle that fair trials depend on juries deciding cases on evidence rather than prejudicial social media commentary. Contempt powers exist to protect the integrity of justice; without such safeguards, vocal supporters or detractors could poison the jury pool and prevent impartial verdicts, undermining both the defendant's right to a fair trial and public confidence in the legal system.
The case against
This warning raises significant concerns about restricting freedom of expression and legitimate public discourse about trials involving public figures. Social media commentary, even when heated, allows ordinary citizens to engage with questions of justice and accountability; jurors receive clear instructions to avoid bias, and restricting speech sets a troubling precedent for judges to suppress discussion of high-profile cases under the guise of protecting trials.