UK & Commonwealth tradition v. US laws
Just a couple of remarks.
You say: "I don't believe journalists should wait for a conviction to publish public records." This is a complete nonsequitur, with no bearing on anything under discussion here.
You say "To Wikinews, I say, why aren't you publishing this information and doing your job as citizen journalists!" This is a double nonsequitur, as (1) we don't have a job here, we're volunteers, and (2) since we're an open wiki, the question could just as well be why you aren't writing the articles you apparently think we should be writing.
RE: "why aren't you doing your job? ..." I was referring to references of policy-based discussion about "public interest" from comments above. If we take this to mean, Wikinews shouldn't publish photos of accused before conviction, then yes I think that would prevent Wikinews from doing its job. We can always find reporters who can do this type story from abroad and/or legally from within that reporter's jurisdiction.
Nobody but you is talking about not publishing someone's photo until conviction. Details matter; hypotheticals tend to fall flat because there are always details of a real situation that got glossed over in a hypothetical, or worse, in the hypothetical different people filled in details differently so they weren't even talking about the same thing. This is a particular case, and we could discuss it, but not if you're not talking about this case — which it appears you aren't — not even this law.
Actually, a simple search in Google images brings up her photo in the Daily Mail for one example where it says she is to appear in court.
Are we reading the same article: "The BBC College of Journalism advises legal advice be sought ahead of publishing photos and notes it has previously been ruled contempt. The BBC used her photo prominently in their own online coverage."
It's my understanding that the delay in publishing the arrestee's identity is until they've appeared in court, which is much less restrictive than waiting until the trial is over (conviction or acquital). Of course, if I'm misunderstanding, all bets are off.
Fairly accurate (although, I'd defer to BRS on that). The point is to allow a jury to be sequestered without undue influence from publicity around the accused.
The other problem, which I've observed several displays of around this case, is people advocating mob justice. I'd never advocate going as-far as, say, France does in their advocacy of a right to privacy trumping the public interest. This case is an individual, and not a government minister or employee.
Crtew, you've cited case-types in arguing for publication where I, and I'm sure others, would seriously consider public interest trumping any legal constraints that might exist. I don't think this is anything like such.
The analogy in US law would probably be the oft-quoted "shouting fire in a crowded theatre". In any case, the odds of us obtaining an image and being able to publish such along with the name of the accused make this more of an academic debate. I'll leave "How free is Free Speech" to philosophers.