'We have worked long and hard on this case and we don't want anything to ruin it. We ask that the media obey the law."

The case in question is the Leigh Matthews kidnapping and murder and the impassioned plea came from police Superintendent Chris Wilken shortly after mass market magazine You published details of an in-prison "confession" by suspect Donovan Moodley.

Without beating about the bush, by publishing the story - before any trial or even before Moodley had been asked to plead to any charges - the magazine had broken the prime rule pounded into the minds of every first-year journalism student in the land - the law of sub judice (literally "still under judicial consideration").

The rule falls under customary law and offenders face charges of contempt of court or even defeating the ends of justice.

In essence, the law stipulates the media cannot publish opinions or comments on court proceedings - merely the facts as stated in open court.

Of equal importance, no journalist can publish details of any pending evidence before it has been heard in court and while the trial is proceeding.

The aim of the sub judice rule is simple: to ensure the outcome of any trial is not influenced, thereby protecting the rights of an accused - who is, in terms of SA law, deemed innocent until proven guilty.

In recent years, many newspapers and magazines seem to have paid scant regard to the letter of the law, and now the topic has come under intense scrutiny since the You article.

The story was headlined "Killer's cell confession" and claims that Moodley revealed details of the Matthews kidnapping and murder to cellmate Johnny du Preez - details that could well be led in evidence in any subsequent court case.

Du Preez was paid for the story and has been questioned by police as a possible witness.

While his tell-all tale might have dramatically increased the magazine's sales, the question is what influence will it have on Moodley's trial?

Experts say that it could affect the outcome of the trial, but members of the judiciary are supposed to have steel frames and only apply their minds to the evidence before them. However, judges are human too.

The law clearly states that "It is contempt of court to publish, either by the written or the spoken word, information or comment regarding a case which is pending, and which may tend to prejudice the outcome of the case.

"A case is pending from the moment of its commencement (by, for example, summons or arrest) until is has been finally disposed of in the judicial process, which includes the judgment of the final possible appeal.

"The publication of information before a case is sub judice, which may prejudice its eventual outcome, is not contempt of court, but may constitute the crime of defeating or obstructing (or attempting to defeat or obstruct) the course of justice."

But You editor Esmaré Weideman disagrees. Earlier reports in The Star newspaper quote her as saying, "Those sub judice rules are completely outdated".

"We believe that there was a lot of misinformation, mistruths and sensational reporting on this story and we actually contributed to setting the record straight by printing the truth.

"In fact the police should thank us because we have given them a new witness," she said.

Constitutional law professor Karty Govender said that should Du Preez take the stand at trial, his evidence could be regarded by the defence as impugn because of money received.

"We are all bound by the law including the press. Unless the rule is challenged and changed, breaking the rule amounts to breaking the law."

Govender said: "Should evidence of the confession be rendered inadmissible and should Moodley be acquitted because of the lack of evidence then given the publicity around this matter the administration of justice may be adversely affected as a consequence.

"Given the fact that You magazine acted in this manner I think any prosecution would be an appropriate way to test the legality of their conduct and provide certainty in the law," he said.

Govender added that if inexperienced reporters are assigned to cover court proceedings involving complex legal issues the reports may not accurately reflect judicial reasoning and thinking.

"The end result is that the public are not properly and accurately informed of proceedings," he said.

Since the start of the Schabir Shaik corruption trial, presiding judge Hilary Squires has lambasted journalists for "trial by media".

The KPMG report published in The Sunday Tribune days before it was entered into evidence sparked a tongue-lashing from Squires.

His message was simple, let's hear the evidence first.

Will the publishers of You magazine face prosecutions? In fact has anyone?

"No prosecution for contempt was instituted when newspapers throughout the country published details of the attempted assassination of Dr Verwoerd by David Pratt in 1960, of the assassination of Dr Verwoerd by Dimitri Tsafendas in 1966, and of the 'siege' of the Israeli consulate in Fox Street, Johannesburg, in 1975 by the Protter brothers.

"All these particulars were later to figure as evidence in trials. Tsafendas was even openly described as a murderer by the news media before his trial," (Strydom and Van der Walt Persreg 172 -173; Strauss 1971 SALJ 129).

In response, Director of Public Prosecutions Shamila Batohi said the debate surrounding the sub judice rule was one that affected the prosecuting authority.

"We serve the interests of justice and anything that potentially prejudices this is of concern to us.

"In my opinion, in addition to any prejudice that Moodley might suffer as a result of the publication of the confession, the State is prejudiced. A potential State witness has (reportedly) received money for his story. In balancing the various rights, interests, etc, in my view, the interests of justice are compromised.

"As the Prosecuting Authority, we need to seriously consider the implications of such publication and decide whether any action needs to be taken."

With acknowledgements to Monica Laganparsad and the Daily News.