Ok so this past year there has been a lot of nonsense online saying that a certain persons crown court trial that starts on monday the 5th Jan will get thrown out because of folk talking about it on the internet these past months.

Is this possible?

I mean the charges this person is up on regard offences alleged to of taken place in 2011....Yet nobody who talks about this person online had ever even heard about them till late 2012 (when the person themselves went to every national newspaper with their sob story)

So it got me thinking..If your ever up on some serious charge and you get bailed you can simply then write a ton of stuff about yourself online and get your friends to do the same and then come your day in court your solicitor just hands the judge a handful of printed out Youtube comments and forum posts resulting in a bang of his hammer and case dismissed?????

You then go and sue every person who has commented aswell...even if what they have written is true because the stuff they talk about regards images and video that you yourself uploaded months or years before you were even arrested.

Im really confussed.

Bottom lin....Are online comments really a cause to get a case thrown out of court?

"Case thrown out"
Cannot from a legal knowledge point of view anwser your question. But will give you from both my experience and observations some thoughts.
1. Judges appear to be a law unto themselves in that, whether they allow or disallow something, it is totally in their control with little to no checks. So if the judge, CPS and others wanting a conviction, but do not want anyone questioning their unlawful actions online with highlighting things or people perverting the course of justice get the police to threaten bloggers and commenters with court action. Also,this undermines freedom of speech.
2. Judges apply and emphasize whatever law suits them if they want or do not want a conviction. They control the summing up and so forth.
3. The overriding principles of fair trial, beyond reasonable doubt and innocent until proven guilty are ignored and any new or old law that is in contradiction to the principles mentioned is elevated to overide them. For example, in the Rolf Harris trial clearly the anonymous 7/8 year old at the alleged time could not of been at the event as it is clear from the police evidence the event never took place and yet the judge allowed the count to remain saying that if they, the jury, considered one or serveral of the witnesses to be true that then would make the others true (Cannot remember the exact wording but something to that effect).

So in practice something reported or not reported is of no consequence but if it could provide a fair trial when one is not wanted then you more than likely will be threaten by the police.

no way in the world will it get thrown out because of internet chatter.

more likely the judge will issue a warning to the internet warblers they risk a contempt charge and advise the jury not to read newspapers, internet at risk of a jail term themselves.

judge may then decide to delay the trial for many months and consequently the accused will either stay on extended bail (driving them crazy) or stay in jail if they cannot get bail.

## happened to a good friend of mine around 1985 when she was on an importing drugs charge which she denied but which had massive publicity in tabloids.

The CPS delayed and delayed and she decided to stay on remand in case she got a couple of years..on remand she could have friends like me take her a Harrod's hamper in Holloway (she turned bi & had an affair with a screw & got friendly with Myra Hindley.

annoying for her police dropped charges at very last minute after 10 months in jail for nothing..got her car back from police pound and about 5 grand of the 20 she was carrying (cops denied it was that much)

Yes I love the way Judges say "you will disregard that, members of the jury" as if it's possible. Prosecution, of course, are aware of this, so mention things they know the Judge will throw out, being certain the jury will be influenced by them.

Thanks for the replies.

Said person (who must remain anonymous)has this past year threatened people online on an almost daily basis and claims that she has countless folk under investigation involving several police forces who are taking action and planing mass arrests etc (for defamation,slander,libel and trolling)

I just wonder how this will work if this person is found guilty though two weeks from now when their trial ends?

Also this person has publicly blamed the police and authorities of a mass cover-up and the only reason that this person was arrested and charged is cos they made the police look bad in the first place!

I know this is confussing but I cant say more incase im cyber arrested.But im sure you will work out who im referring too in a few days once the trial gets underway.

Is it slander to comment in a negative way about a person being intentionaly repulsive?

For instance if i write "you rotten filthy pigs!" under 2girls1cup can the two choco munchers take me court for it?
Cos the person in question is threatening everyone with legal action over stuff they said in a disturbing video...which hopefully the judge will see for himself.
If the judge dislikes the video does that make him a troll?

I'm amazed the things some nutters say on the net when they couldn't possibly have a clue about the truth.

Prince Andrew is an example at present.

There really should be a Criminal Law for Libel.

So sick of this ghastly US import of "freedom of speech" when it's hogwash.

Oh dear....
seems today the jury didnt hear about the video that has disgusted so many...

they heard about another one!! and its quite rightly knocked a lot of people sick.

Still,it was all about "gathering evidence" wasnt it?

I wonder if Vanessa George tried to use that excuse?

Still she has some supporters left. Dr Nigel Oldfield (convicted child pornographer),Chris Spivey (awaiting indecent images charges) and Danille La Verite (who thinks everyone is a paedophile (exept her Facebook friends) oh and the David Icke forum lot...who think that EVERYTHING is staged by freemasons.

I wonder if Vanessa George tried to use that excuse?
And others..... Not heard of this person until now.

Well when I look up the new stories and available information on some these "real deal paedophile" people I notice two things. One I find it hard to believe that anyone would be that crazy but there are many that are (Never met any myself) and secondly when it is "the real deal", then real evidence seems to be very easy to find and convincing. No need for the false allegation crowd.
Also, I can understand the reason for the anger of people. Just wish they would take time to direct that anger at the guilty and not find any "old" target. It is strange. When different groups get down trodden and then riot they tear up their own neighbourhoods both in the UK, Paris and the US. Probably everywhere. We are certainly strange animals. Very childish neverthe less.

well don't keep us in suspense...who is on trial?