To not understand Sub Judice?

[wasonthelist]

Just heard a report on bbc radio. A bloke arrested recently in a high profile case has issued a statement via his lawyer. As I understand it, for fairly sensible reasons, the rest of us plebs aren't allowed to comment on the case - so how come the accused can give an account of his actions in advance of the case?

I'm not a lawyer. But common sense says that he will be expected to account for himself in Court while the bloke in the green grocer that told you his wife's cousin knows he's banged to right, won't be.

Misunderstood/misheard the report - accused's statement was read out in brief court appearance. In this case guilt is not in question, although what he's eventually convicted of may be. He accepts he was there and did it.

You can comment all you like on a case but not in a way that would influence its outcome - so you can't publish an article saying: "He is a murdering git and here's why, he's done it before, he's always fantasised about killing a policeman, he was always a bad un etc etc." Generally, only statements/facts/explanations that are made in court can be reported (unless a judge forbids it for whatever reason). Clayton Williams's solicitor's statement was, I think, a bit odd at this stage of the proceedings but I suppose, given the amount of newspaper articles that have stated as a fact the police's version of events - that he intended to kill PC Philips - he felt his client had a right to repudiate that.

Not in the UK so I didn't know it was this case. might influence people more. Just look at the difference in the pictures!!!

I thought it was a bit odd too. But then I initially missed the fact the statement was read in court. I may have a slightly higher sensitivity than most. A bloke who I was at school with became a copper and was killed in similar circumstances (trying to deploy a stinger to stop a stolen van).

It wasn't read in court, from what I understand, the staement was issued after the court appearance. That was what surprised me.

Sorry about your schoolfriend.

Crikey - so I was stIll wrong! It does seem unusual to make such a statement outside court. I can't help feeling it's unduly influential, but I guess feelings are running high.
No doubt his lawyer doesn't think he's risking being in contempt or he wouldn't have made the statement.

Actually, because you are innocent until proven guilty, it is probably fine to protest someone's innocence (or mitigate their culpability in this case) but you can't proclaim someone's guilt.

We are allowed to comment privately on a case all we want.

It's just that the UK media can't publish our comments on a UK case, or any other opinions once a case is sub judice.
You also can't parade down the road with your comments on a placard.
Sub judice applies once a suspect has been arrested or charged, or an arrest warrant has been issued. It lasts until the final court verdict or dismissal.
This is to enable a fair trial for all sides.

Sub judice doesn't affect comments on cases abroad and obviously UK law can't stop anything published abroad.

Are we talking about Clayton Williams? If so, he's not just arrested - he's been charged and has appeared in court.

The rule of thumb when it comes to contempt of court is that you can't publish something that has a "substantial risk of serious prejudice" - ie could sway a jury.

And I don't think that solicitor's statement is at all in contempt. Clearly most of the media agree. I'd publish it, esp bearing in mind any trial - and this looks like it will go to trial - will be several months away.

The statement reads to me more like a warning to the press not to overstep the mark themselves in terms of contempt.