I had a constructive meeting this morning with Crown Prosecution Service officials on Teesside to discuss my concerns about the mounting confusion over contempt of court.

I wrote a blog recently about my perception that local newspapers may be being put under more pressure than the nationals when it comes to contempt.

The blog was picked up nationally, including by Media Guardian, and I'm pleased about that because I believe this is an important debate for the media.

The Jo Yeates murder case is a case in point. It will be interesting to see what happens with landlord Chris Jeffries who was arrested and then released without charge in the early stages of the inquiry.

He faced what, in my view, was unfair reporting by the national press, including the front page headline in the Daily Mirror: 'Jo suspect is peeping tom'.

Had Mr Jeffries faced charges, to what extent would his trial have been prejudiced?

My meeting with the CPS this morning resulted from a judge's warning about potential contempt in Teesside Crown Court after we named a paedophile who had been locked up for six years.

My view is that we did nothing wrong and that Section 39 orders - meant to protect children victims, not defendants - are being made inappropriately.

I wanted to see the CPS to make that specific point but to also air my concerns about a lack of clarity on contempt generally.

With the nationals seemingly allowed to drive a coach and horses through the law in relation to prejudicing trials, editors need to know where they stand.

The CPS has agreed to try to set up a meeting of editors and court officials to try to find a clearer way forward. I look forward to it.