The Attorney General has outlined a series of ten guidelines for the media in an attempt to prevent prejudicial coverage of high-profile court cases.

The controversial remarks came from Lord Goldsmith at a Law For Journalists Conference.

He tackled examples of reporting that might cause concern, his own role as attorney general, the freedom of the press and the rights of society as a whole.

He said journalists had a vital function, supported by the freedom of speech – but that with power came responsibility.

He said: “At the end of the day the responsibility is that of the media to comply with the law. That is so whatever guidance I do or do not seek to offer.

“Responsible journalism requires self-restraint. It requires vigilance to ensure the traps I have outlined are not walked-into.

“It requires proactive consideration of the risk of prejudice, including making contact with the court to ask if any relevant orders have been made and speaking to the CPS. It requires the journalist to have in mind the 1981 Act, but not to treat it as the be all and end all.

“But the press is ultimately responsible for what it prints. I call on you and your colleagues to embrace that responsibility, without in any way compromising the professionalism and independence of which you are rightly proud.”

No previous attorney general has issued such tough and detailed guidance to editors and journalists.

Another conference speaker, Jonathan Caplan QC said: “Is it really the role of the Attorney General to express an opinion prior to publication? Why do we need guidelines? Is it suggested the law is unclear? If so, debate it and amend the law.”

And Sir Christopher Meyer, chairman of the Press Complaints Commission, said: “Although journalists must stay within the law, if the Attorney General wants to extend the reach of the Act, he should change the law.”

Among the ten points highlighted by Lord Goldsmith were publicity around the time of arrest – and subsequent court reporting.

He told his audience: “Both of these issues are of great concern to me in the trials of Ian Huntley and Maxine Carr. I do not want to say too much about this trial as it still on-going and I am still actively monitoring the reporting of it.

“At times some of the reporting of the investigation and trial has been quite frankly unacceptable. I am sure it is right to remind ourselves that the consequences of prejudicial reporting may not only be to the process of justice or to the legitimate interests of the defendants in a criminal trial but of the victims of crime too.

“Another example would be information and/or images published as part of an appeal issued by the police, which are repeated after arrest and/or charge, where they can no longer be said to be of use in finding a wanted suspect. The repeated printing or showing of such images once the need for assistance has passed could lead to a risk of prejudice.”

And he warned that the onus is on the media to be sure that no relevant order was in place, rather than for the courts to have to remind journalists, urging greater vigilance in that area.

During the conference he also recalled the contempt of court action against the Manchester Evening News for breach of the High Court injunction prohibiting the publication of information relating to the whereabouts of Robert Thompson and Jon Venables.

On the day that the parole board decision as to the pair’s release was announced last June, the paper published information which was sufficient to lead anyone with local knowledge to identify one or both of the secure units where they were being held.

Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss found the publishers guilty of a “significant” contempt of court and fined them £30,000.

She accepted the paper’s assertion that it was a “sad blunder” and not a case of taking a calculated risk to increase circulation.