Trial commentators under scrutiny

A Facebook group and blogger activities have prompted an inquiry by the Solicitor General's office. Photo / Supplied

The Solicitor General's office is investigating whether internet bloggers and social networking sites have breached contempt of court laws in the Sophie Elliott trial.

Several blogs and online forums have raised concerns over whether comments could influence, or prejudge, the current murder trial in Christchurch High Court.

Clayton Robert Weatherston, 33, a former Otago University economics lecturer, is charged with the murder of 22-year-old former student and girlfriend Sophie Elliot, in her Dunedin family home on January 9, last year. Weatherston admits he is guilty of manslaughter but not murder. Elliot was mutilated and stabbed 216 times.

Solicitor General spokeswoman Jan Fulstow said on Thursday the office was considering what action to take over a Facebook group called "Clayton Weatherston is a Murderer. He committed murder, not manslaughter" as well as comments on David Farrar's Kiwiblog.

An email update on Friday said: "Our office is currently still considering this matter ... given where the trial is at it is not appropriate for us to make any further comment. Our first priority is to ensure that the trial is completed without any undue interference."

Lead defence counsel Judith Ablett-Kerr could not be contacted. And defence counsel Greg King said he would not discuss anything to do with the case until the trial was over.

Wellington-based media lawyer Steven Price said everyone was bound by contempt of court laws and it had nothing to do with shutting down freedom of speech.

"If they create a real risk of prejudice to the fairness of a trial and that's especially the case when you've got a jury trial.

"Put yourself in the shoes of the defendant. Would you want to be a defendant who's facing, not just the accusations of the Crown but basically a cheerleader crowd of commentators out there, who have seen, maybe just some media reports of the trial, and are basing their comments on that instead of the whole evidence?"

The real risk came when someone invented or altered facts, or got them wrong, he said. "It can be dangerous because jurors may see that and start making up their minds on that basis, instead of what they've heard in court."

Auckland barrister Colin Amery, who is not involved in the case, said Weatherston "has a right to a trial", whatever people think.

He said the Facebook group could be seen as being in contempt of court because, "they're presuming to reach a conclusion about a matter which is sub judice.

Kiwiblog creator David Farrar said he was generally "careful to avoid commenting on trials while under way".

He gave the Bain trial as an example of him saving commentary until after the jury retired.

"In the Weatherston trial, the basic facts are not in dispute," he said.

"Hence, there is no dispute about innocence - only whether or not he is found guilty of murder or manslaughter - a decision for the jury guided by the Judge. I understand jurors are usually specifically warned to not read information on the internet about the case.

"As I have done in other cases, if I am asked to delete comments that may be prejudicial, I will generally do so.

"However, comments appear automatically without my approval, and with over 100,000 comments a year made on the blog, it is impossible to pre-vet comments."