A retired schoolteacher, Jefferies was landlord to Joanna Yeates, who was murdered in Bristol in December 2010. Jefferies was the subject of multiple libels in national newspapers, for which he sued and received damages.
This is an account of his treatment by the press at the time of his arrest, his grounds for the subsequent libel action against eight publications, the outcome and the impact of these experiences on him, his family and friends both at the time and in the succeeding period. He includes numerous quotations from libellous articles and gives an example of failure to report criticism of the press coverage at the time by Joanna Yeates’s partner. Her refers to the convictions of the Sun and Daily Mirror for contempt of court for their reporting, and he notes that he could not have taken action without a conditional fee agreement (CFA).
Questioned by Robert Jay QC, Jefferies covers much the same ground as his first statement, but adds an account of an exchange of letters with Baroness Buscombe, the director of the Press Complaints Commission (PCC), in which he states: ‘As things stand it seems that newspapers, in the search for sensation and increased sales, will take any risks, knowing that the penalties available are unlikely seriously to hurt them.’ He also criticises the coverage of his case by one, unnamed broadsheet newspaper, which he says refused to print letters from readers that were critical of that coverage.
This relates to Module 2, press and police. Jefferies alleges that ‘inappropriate interactions’ between police and press were ‘in large part responsible’ for his ordeal. Police leaks influenced the press and press reports influenced the police. At this time he was suing Avon and Somerset Constabulary (ASC) for false imprisonment, breach of human rights and trespass. He states that ASC confirmed to him that his name was leaked to the press at the time of his arrest, and refers in detail to Mirror reporting. He concludes that the penalties for police leaks of this kind should be higher and refers to an unsuccessful attempt by Anna Soubry MP in June 2010 to introduce legislation permitting the jailing of journalists who name uncharged suspects.
Afternoon session, beginning transcript p1
Questioned by Robert Jay QC, Jefferies covers the same ground and also discusses a letter commenting on these issues from ASC Chief Constable Colin Port.
This relates to Module 2, press and police. Jefferies alleges that ‘inappropriate interactions’ between police and press were ‘in large part responsible’ for his ordeal. Police leaks influenced the press and press reports influenced the police. At this time he was suing Avon and Somerset Constabulary (ASC) for false imprisonment, breach of human rights and trespass. He states that ASC confirmed to him that his name was leaked to the press at the time of his arrest, and refers in detail to Mirror reporting. He concludes that the penalties for police leaks of this kind should be higher and refers to an unsuccessful attempt by Anna Soubry MP in June 2010 to introduce legislation permitting the jailing of journalists who name uncharged suspects.
This is an account of his treatment by the press at the time of his arrest, his grounds for the subsequent libel action against eight publications, the outcome and the impact of these experiences on him, his family and friends both at the time and in the succeeding period. He includes numerous quotations from libellous articles and gives an example of failure to report criticism of the press coverage at the time by Joanna Yeates’s partner. Her refers to the convictions of the Sun and Daily Mirror for contempt of court for their reporting, and he notes that he could not have taken action without a conditional fee agreement (CFA).
Afternoon session, beginning transcript p1
Questioned by Robert Jay QC, Jefferies covers the same ground and also discusses a letter commenting on these issues from ASC Chief Constable Colin Port.
Morning session, beginning transcript p9
Questioned by Robert Jay QC, Jefferies covers much the same ground as his first statement, but adds an account of an exchange of letters with Baroness Buscombe, the director of the Press Complaints Commission (PCC), in which he states: ‘As things stand it seems that newspapers, in the search for sensation and increased sales, will take any risks, knowing that the penalties available are unlikely seriously to hurt them.’ He also criticises the coverage of his case by one, unnamed broadsheet newspaper, which he says refused to print letters from readers that were critical of that coverage.
