There is clearly a presumption in favour of the open reporting and the public administration of justice, and any assessment of suppression must adopt that presumption as a starting point. The presumption is not a “fundamental principle” and is capable of being displaced. Priestley J states in GAP v Police at paragraph 40:
This case is not the one to run the sexual conviction rate versus acquittals debate. What is annoying is the trial by media that has occurred. That may mean that no trial will ever occur. Responsible reporting would have meant the story could still have run, but with the focus on MFAT and the Minister without the need to publish matters germane to any prospective trial. I dislike mob rule and populism and how it appears to have been used to erode fair trial rights.
 Law Commission, Evidence of Bad Character in Criminal Proceedings, Report 273 (2001), Appendix A, [A 35]–[A 38].
 See Law Commission, Evidence in Criminal Proceedings: Previous Misconduct of a Defendant, CP 141 (1996) Appendix D, [D 63]
 Law Commission of England and Wales, Evidence of Bad Character in Criminal Proceedings, Report 273 (2001), Appendix A,