A closer look at the Christopher Jefferies story and the contempt of court

On December 17^th 2010 Joanna Yeates, a 25-year-old landscape architect, went missing in Bristol, after a night out with colleagues.  Following one of the largest police investigations ever undertaken in the Bristol area, Yeates’ body was discovered on Christmas Day of the same year in Failand, North Somerset. A post-mortem examination showed that she had been strangled to death.

It was later revealed that Vincent Tabak, Yeates’ neighbour, was found guilty of her murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment.

Joanna Yeates pictured in 2009

However, Christopher Jefferies, a retired teacher and Yeates’ landlord, was initially arrested on suspicion of her murder. Although it was quickly established that Jefferies – who was never charged – was innocent of any involvement in the crime, his arrest excited great interest in all media around the UK.

Several UK newspapers published negative articles about Mr. Jefferies and “compendious details of his character and personal habits”. (see Wilby, 2011)

The Sun described Jefferies as “weird, posh, lewd and a creepy oddball”, The Daily Star announced “Jo landlord a creep who freaked out schoolgirls” and “angry weirdo”, while The Daily Mirror branded him as a “nutty professor with a bizarre past, who was arrogant, rude and snob.”

Attorney General Dominic Grieve stated on December 31^st 2010, in an interview for BBC Radio 4 that “newspapers and all media are under a legal obligation to observe the principles of the Contempt of Court Act.” He also added that “contempt laws protect an individual going through the investigative and legal process to ensure a fair trial could take place.”

According to Mike Todd and Mark Hanna “the law of contempt protects the integrity of the administration of justice, and the fundamental principle that a defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Contempt of law most affects journalists when they publish material which might affect a trial, by making a jury more likely to find a defendant guilty – or innocent – or by influencing witness’s evidence.” (Dodd and Hanna, 2014, p. 212)

“The media may run the risk of breaking the Contempt of Court Act 1981 if they comment on active proceedings, jury deliberations, criticise the judiciary or disobey a court order.” (Bland et al., 2005, p. 15)

Jefferies pictured before his arrest in 2010

Jefferies was released from police bail on March 4^th 2011 and subsequently “the High Court granted the Attorney General permission to bring a case against tabloids and move a motion for committal of Contempt of Court against The Sun and the Daily Mirror.” (see BBC.com, 2011)

Eventually, Jefferies launched legal action against eight newspapers and won an undisclosed sum in libel and substantial damages for defamation from The Sun, The Daily Mirror, The Sunday Mirror, The Daily Record, The Daily Mail, The Daily Express, The Daily Star and The Scotsman. The Sun and The Daily Mirror were also fined £18,000 and £50,000 respectively, for the way they reported his arrest.

The coverage of Christopher Jefferies’ arrest and the lawsuit against UK newspapers demonstrates that the “crime” of Contempt of Court suggests that publications about on-going legal cases might impede the administration of justice and can also create a substantial risk of serious prejudice to any potential future trial. Even though Jefferies was innocent, the media presented him as guilty and these false accusations could possibly influence the jury negatively.