Justice will not be suppressed

The murder of Grace Millane is a tragedy. As much as a number of commentators and the justice minister like to paint it thus, the apparent flouting of a suppression order that has revealed the identity of her alleged killer is not.

Frustrating? Yes. A challenge to our slowmoving justice system? Maybe. But certainly no tragedy.

There will be many, including Justice Minister Andrew Little, who will fret that such a revelation creates a genuine threat to a fair trial and the pursuit of justice for Millane’s family. That it undermines the very nature of justice.

There is, of course, some substance to that, but there is also ample evidence to suggest that any risk is minimal and our justice system will survive this latest incursion on its time-honoured processes. That reassurance is provided, in part, by the fastmoving nature of the internet and social media and its opposite, the slow, grinding wheels of justice.

Modern news tends to crash against the rocks of human consciousness, before retreating quickly on the tide of waning interest. Even the big stories.

Millane’s death is clearly of great public interest right now, here and in Britain, which led overseas news organisations to publish the alleged killer’s name. In doing so they broke no laws.

That inspired a certain level of interest, which swelled on the breadth and depth of social media. But for the great majority of people, that facile inquiry will begin and end at a name and face of an accused murderer. Many will struggle to remember both by the time of the trial, probably at least 12 months away. Some may even have forgotten by the time the 26-year-old alleged killer makes his next appearance, when suppression is likely to be dropped.

It’s worth remembering, too, that the murder of tourists in this country, and associated overseas interest, is still rare. Suppression is observed in the great majority of cases that make their way through our courts.

Those relaxed about the impact of such indiscretions on justice also have evidence to back their ambivalence. Law expert Warren Young and others researched such influences on juries in 2001, on behalf of the Law Commission. They concluded that ‘‘publicity both before and during the trial currently has little, if any, effect on jurors’’.

So there is every reason to believe that, despite the level of interest in this case, justice will be served.

That does not mean that Little and the justice system he heads should not make some effort to better understand the impact of the internet and mitigate the risks. Another Law Commission report, 2009’s Suppressing Names and Evidence, suggested the issuing of orders to force internet providers to remove information in breach of suppression orders.

But if the internet is a new frontier, then social media is the wild, wild west: once the horse has bolted, it’s next to impossible to bring it under control. Even after a person is named, officially, people may be able to track their footprints through Facebook, Google and other sites.

So the challenge is significant, perhaps even insurmountable. One that our justice system may have to live with, but one we are confident it will survive.