The tragic case of 17-year-old Ashleigh Hall who was found dead after meeting a man via the internet raises some interesting legal questions for newspapers.

A 32-year-old man, Peter Chapman, had appeared in court charged with unlawful killing, kidnap, and failing to notify a change of address as required under the Sexual Offences Act.

The fact that he is a convicted sex offender is, therefore, established as part of the charge. But how far should newspapers go in terms of potentially influencing a jury and risking being in contempt of court?

Time is a powerful factor in contempt and Chapman's trial is likely to be at least six months away so the impact of news reports today will diminish.

But the rules are now so unclear as to be meaningless.

The legal advice I was given yesterday was to stick to the charge which establishes Chapman as a sex offender but avoid detail of previous convictions and anything likely to stir up emotions.

The front page headline in today's Daily Mirror is: Facebook sex fiend charged.

The Sun goes with: He 'killed my double' on the basis of a graphic interview with Chapman's ex-fiancee who looks uncannily like Darlington student Ashleigh and talks of his vile past.

Is contempt of court a thing of the past? It's an interesting question.