The Contempt of Court Act is essential to modern legal case conduct. It aims to prevent public and media influence over the outcome of a case. This validity of this act was thrown into confusion this past December due to the coverage of the press on the Joanna Yeates case. Joanna Yeates was reported missing on the 19th December 2010. Somerset and Avon Police immediately began a search for her, an operation which used 80 detectives and civil servants. On the 25th December Joanna Yeates’ body was found and the investigation into her death began. After the Post-Mortem confirmed she was killed by ‘strangulation’ police began compiling a list of suspects. On the 30th December 2010 Christopher Jefferies was taken into police custody for questioning and released on bail on the 31st December. The Media immediately turned there coverage to focus on Christopher Jefferies and became the centre of a controversial media campaign. The media started to paint a less than favourable picture of Mr Jefferies, making him out to be a very strange man with a love for niche films and unruly white hair. Rhys Mardon, one of Christopher’s representatives stated ‘His name has been blackened, and his privacy invaded.’ Dominic Grieve, the Attorney General for England and Wales stated he was planning to take action under The Contempt of Court Act so the media would stop there tirade against the 65 year old landlord. The police however were wary of punishing the media as there main appeal for evidence had been through the same media streams they sought to restrict. The media’s coverage made it hard for the police to clear Jefferies name and so Jefferies laid low for weeks. During this time the police managed to find a breakthrough due to new evidence being presented. On the 20th January, 32 year old Vincent Tabak was arreseted and on the 22nd January he was charged with the murder of Joanna Yeates. The main controversy over media coverage was how quickly the media attacked Christopher Jefferies even though he had not been charged. This clearly affected the case as it swayed public opinion and police action. The Contempt of Court Act has always been about limiting public and media influence over a case, especially concerning trials and the Jury. Dominic Grieve clearly predicted this media uprising and yet seemed to have limited power to prevent this. Kelvin MacKenzie stated “If it (The Contempt of Court Act) wasn’t inconsequential before, the online world makes it ridiculous now.” His comments follow his record fine he was issued in 1994 for publishing a photo and collapsing a murder case. This has questioned the power of the Contempt of Court Act with many media sources pushing there publications to the limits of the law. Many have started to view the media’s attitude as ‘act now, think later,’ with company lawyers left to clean up behind. The Joanna Yeates case could therefore be revolutionary to the future of the media and The Contempt of Court Act.
