Report comment

Anonymous 11.20
Surely the answer to that, without threatening freedom of speech, is for Parliament or the High Court to widen the offence of Contempt to include recklessly, or whatever terms lawyers would use, to misreport proceedings, inc by omission, that a reasonable journalist/editor (who after all have an in-house lawyer to hand) would know to be likely to mislead readers. Aggravating factors would be "in such a way as - to reduce public confidence in or willingness to use or assist the judicial system /- to cause distress to innocent parties".
Also, why in general should penalties for offences committed by or with the knowledge of a corporate body be stated, not in cash terms, but in terms of the amount reasonably calculated to be x times the financial benefit obtained from it?
Sorry to be so bold as a non-lawyer to stick my toe in your waters, but I have long felt that the legal system, which is supposed to answer to the needs of the citizenry who largely pay for it, is somewhat disdainful of the idea that its aim should be that its outcomes satisfy, to the greatest degree possible, that public's sense of justice (which is, of course, a consensual not an academic concept) rather than one that judges have developed according to some other 'principle'.