The 'No discussion of ongoing cases' rule

P_1

Just some idle curiosity on my part but is there any particular reason why court cases or crime stories can't be discussed once charges have been brought or when the court is in session? I think it's to try to prevent biased juries and the like but I'm just wondering if it's in the law or is it just a house rule of Boards or something.

ArmaniJeanss

Googling 'sub judice' should give some background to it.

It can be remarkably easy to be in contempt of court when discussing an ongoing case.

P_1

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Googling 'sub judice' should give some background to it.

It can be remarkably easy to be in contempt of court when discussing an ongoing case.

Ah that makes a lot of sense now. Consider my idle curiosity satisfied.

Dav

Yep, it's a sub judice issue. Contempt of Court is the sort of offence where you can go straight to jail, do not pass go and do not receive £200

No harm using the term/even linking to wiki when closing threads I guess

hullaballoo

Sub judice is the rule and the rationale for it is the threat that public discourse around a case before the courts could prejudice the outcome. In fact, the reporting of certain murders in relatively recent times has led to trials collapsing.

An infamous example resulted in the entire country being shown the two fingers because the mass media had done such a classless job on reporting on the story. They then printed the picture of the two fingers being given to us. Nice work.

I don't think boards wants that.

P_1

hullaballoo wrote: »

Sub judice is the rule and the rationale for it is the threat that public discourse around a case before the courts could prejudice the outcome. In fact, the reporting of certain murders in relatively recent times has led to trials collapsing.

An infamous example resulted in the entire country being shown the two fingers because the mass media had done such a classless job on reporting on the story. They then printed the picture of the two fingers being given to us. Nice work.

I don't think boards wants that.

Yes I remember that incident. I'd be pretty sure boards would want to avoid that kind of clusterfudge alright. Also nice that boards protects its users from the possibility of a nasty contempt charge too

ArmaniJeanss

Some comments in court today by the appointed defence lawyer and the judge on publicity in the O'Gorman/Bellante case (which I think was the case that sparked the OP).

http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/0117/498488-tom-ogorman/

Mr Staines also asked for the media to be warned. He said that there had been a large amount of publicity in this case.
He said he felt the sub judice rule had already been broken and he had written to the Director of Public Prosecutions in relation to that.
The judge endorsed this and remanded Mr Bellante in custody to appear again at Cloverhill District Court on 29 January.

hullaballoo

I have just re-read the OP.

It is important to note that commentary online/in the media can prejudice a trial even before the accused is formally brought before the court. In fact, once a crime has been committed, any number of issues can arise that could inhibit the fairness of a trial. There have been cases where Garda investigations are dropped because the integrity of the investigation is compromised due to outside interference.

returnNull

would the caution regarding the discussion of an ongoing investigation only apply to Irish cases or is it cases in general.

In fairness can only remember a few threads been deleted/locked but they have all been in regards to Irish people.

Steve

returnNull wrote: »

would the caution regarding the discussion of an ongoing investigation only apply to Irish cases or is it cases in general.

In fairness can only remember a few threads been deleted/locked but they have all been in regards to Irish people.

I would have thought that to be the case but I'd wait for an admin or staff member to answer it officially.

Dav

We take the stance that as we're a predominantly Irish site and in the Irish jurisdiction, those are the ones we must avoid.

Although, technically speaking, we could be hit for discussions of cases outside of Ireland, but it's just highly unlikely that an Irish website could or should have any bearing on a court case in another country.

Does sub judice apply between a guilty plea/verdict and sentencing?

hullaballoo

Yes, the idea behind the rule is that it could influence the court.

Realistically, it is unlikely that a judge would ever rule that s/he had been prejudiced by media/public discussion but technically the rule applies.

It's also worth noting that going around shouting and roaring "he should be hanged" when someone gets sentenced is also contempt of court.

Ilyushin76

Deleted User wrote: »

Does sub judice apply between a guilty plea/verdict and sentencing?

Why let the thread go to over 100 posts before deciding to close it?

Ilyushin76

Ilyushin76 wrote: »

Why let the thread go to over 100 posts before deciding to close it?

It was well into the thread before it was noticed. The mods discussed it, we were unsure of the rules so it was decided we would ask here and wait for advice before closing it, as soon as hullaballoo posted above, the thread was locked.

Super-Rush

Does this apply for cases in the UK?

P_1

Super-Rush wrote: »

Does this apply for cases in the UK?

Crikey, what have I started?

I think it depends whether UK courts have jurisdiction over Ireland but I clearly amn't an expert on the subject so it might be best to ask one of the Legal mods

Nodin

Super-Rush wrote: »

Does this apply for cases in the UK?

Nope. And with America ye can say what ye want over there, by all appearances.