Most of what they are looking to cover with this bill is, in theory, already covered under contempt of court laws, which prohibits reporting anything that may be prejudicial to the trial.
The problem is that those are never enforced against newspapers during the initial stages of an investigation, where nobody has any idea what is going on, but the papers have column inches to fill. This is when vicious character assassination fills the void nicely, allowing papers to run endless "is this man the evil killer?" stories rather than admit that they know nothing and neither do the police.
As things stand, assuming the person being maligned by Fleet Streets finest doesn't get lynched, their usual source of justice is through the libel courts. This is all very well, but once a national newspaper has run a story that you consort with paedophiles (on the basis that one once sold you a flat), or that you have the deranged features of a cannibal killer (because a man in the pub said he thought you look a bit like one) then half a million quid might not put things right.
Once a charge has been laid, the case for controlling media coverage under contempt of court legislation is simpler by far. Even the looniest editor won't permit their paper to host speculative nonsense about the guilt of a man who has been charged and is awaiting trial in the same way that will before then.
