Free speech or safe trial?

The Guardian has succeeded in publishing a story the BBC failed to, citing public interest and press freedom to overturn an injunction. This is very positive as for once, it's a subject we should know about. This is a case where it is alleged that people sold the highest legal power through sitting in the House of Lords, in exchange for support in the highest political power through supporting general election campaigns.
However, let me put a slight dampener on the Guardian's success. What is more important: the paper telling us that this has happened or people being brought to justice? If the trial fails based on prejudicial material available to the public, what will the newspaper do then?
We can hope that the judge who refused the injunction did so safe in the knowledge that this would not affect a subsequent trial, but how confident can anyone be of that? The cynical among you might look at Shirley Porter and say this will never come to court anyway...