Contempt of court: off the back burner?

The High Court has ruled that the Sun and the Daily Mirror were in contempt of court in the way they reported the arrest of the retired schoolteacher Chris Jefferies in connection with the death of Joanna Yeates in Bristol last Christmas. Both newspapers have been fined five-figure sums.

Mr Jefferies was the landlord and neighbour of Ms Yeates and his arrest generated a huge amount of media coverage during the traditionally quiet news period between Christmas and New Year.

Many of the stories centred on the background and lifestyle of the former English teacher and included interviews with former pupils and others who had come into contact with him over a period of years.

Mr Jefferies has accepted out-of-court settlements from eight newspapers he was suing for libel in connection with their coverage. He is understood to have received "substantial damages".

However, there was some surprise when the Attorney General, Dominic Grieve, applied to the High Court and was given permission to bring Contempt of Court actions in relation to two editions of the Daily Mirror and one of the Sun published over the New Year holiday weekend.

That surprise was largely prompted by the fact that Mr Jefferies was never charged with any offence and was subsequently released, so he was never going to face a trial that could be the subject of a substantial risk of serious prejudice - the test in the 1981 Contempt of Court Act. The hearing took place in early July with Mr Grieve, a QC, leading the prosecution case in person.

The main focus of the papers' defence arguments centred on the 'fade factor' - the degree to which any publication at the time would have faded in the memories of jurors sworn in at a trial nine months later. The papers argued that this - coupled with any directions from the trial judge to jurors to disregard media coverage - would mean that there was no substantial risk of serious prejudice.

However, in their judgment the three judges drew attention to the wording of the 1981 Act where it refers to: "...a publication which creates a substantial risk that the course of justice in the proceedings in question will be seriously impeded or prejudiced".

The judges noted that impeding and prejudicing were not the same thing.

They said that the vilification of a suspect under arrest - such as that experienced by Mr Jefferies - would readily fall under the banner of impediment which could include affecting the ability to gather evidence - such as deterring a potential defence witness from coming forward or refusing to assist with the investigation.

It is likely that this judgment means that journalists will have to pay more attention to the contempt laws than they have been used to doing in recent years.

In turn, it also signals that the courts are likely to be paying more attention to media coverage of active criminal cases.

Some good news for journalists is that the court accepted that the 'fade factor' and jury warnings are relevant to the prejudice aspect of contempt - and at least there is now some better indication as to what is acceptable and what is not.

Vincent Tabak was subsequently charged with the murder of Joanna Yeates and is due to stand trial in October.

Kevin Steele is Senior Legal Trainer at the BBC College of Journalism.