Subjudice is basically a restriction on what the media can do while a criminal proceeding is under way. It’s a protocol which has evolved to try and limit the pressure that can be put on witnesses in criminal matters who may be influenced or intimidated by what is reported in the press. Courts, witnesses and juries ought to do their jobs based on the evidence put before them, not on the basis of things said outside the court. That’s a fair and reasonable position. Individuals do, of course, talk about criminal matters and that’s fair and reasonable too. People are entitled to form opinions and to express them. A balance has to be struck between these two competing interests. Generally the courts have done an excellent job at striking that balance. Those most affected by the subjudice protocols are journalists and the publishers they work for. That makes perfect sense given that the role of the media is to distribute information and opinion in a much wider and, usually, commercial context.
There has been some predictable debate and uncertainty in recent years about how the subjudice protocols should apply to internet based media, both commercial and informal. As far as I know, internet fora such as this one have yet to fall afoul of the common law subjudice rules in Australia. And in my personal opinion only, we are unlikely to see them become so liable unless it can be established that there is some deliberate agenda on behalf of forum owners and operators to deliberately influence a trial or witness.
As for individual forum contributors, in my personal view only, I wouldn’t worry about the coppers knocking on your door and threatening you with a subjudice contempt charge. The rules are aimed squarely at the publishers. That doesn’t mean that you should just ignore the whole issue of potentially influencing a trial unfairly of course.
We want people to be convicted on the basis of admissible evidence, not largely uninformed personal opinion. We don’t want to live in a community where people get off on threatening those charged with offences or by screaming for blood. 99% of people understand that though. And jurors are people like you and me. We aint morons. When a judge tells us to come to a decision based on the evidence we hear in the court we know that’s important and we are decent enough to do that.
If journalists think your deliberations and sharing with each other on this forum is primarily a vehicle for them to study you then that’s a bit sad given that most posters seem to be here to empathise with Allison and her family. But don’t be told what to think and feel with vague threats about subjudice.
Defamation. Most lawyers I know dread the client who comes in wanting to sue someone for defamation. They almost always underestimate the time, resources and money that go into getting a defamation matter in to court and significantly overestimate how much they will get in damages. That’s not to say that you can’t be sued for harming someone’s reputation by what you say on the net, but common sense will usually help you decide what’s appropriate and what isn’t.
All this is just IMO and MOO. If you think you are at some legal risk then go see a lawyer, don’t base your understanding of the law on stuff you see written by anonymous posters on the net. But by the same token don’t be bullied or scared into thinking your feelings and beliefs are not valid or welcome. We are all human being and humans are full of passion. Sometimes that passion makes us do awful things (like kill people) and sometimes it makes us do beautiful things (like put flowers on a bridge).
It was really him 
