With six suspects facing criminal charges over the Hillsborough disaster it is vital that nothing is done to jeopardise the prosecutions.

Today’s charging decision announcement has paved the way for court hearings involving each of those accused of wrongdoing - meaning their cases may end up before a jury.

That means strict guidelines are now in force over what anyone - from news organisations to individuals using Twitter and Facebook - can write about the suspects.

WHAT HAS CHANGED?

In legal terms the proceedings against those charged are now “active”.

Under contempt laws this means nothing should be published that could cause a substantial risk of seriously prejudicing the legal process.

In essence, a process is now underway that could see those charged face a jury trial - and nothing should be done that could influence prospective jurors that someone is guilty.

This means social media posts - whether a profile has 10 or 10,000 followers - should not include comments that implies any suspect is guilty of the offence they have been accused of.

Doing so could provide a basis for a defendant to argue they can not get a fair hearing.

WHAT ABOUT THE INFORMATION ALREADY OUT THERE?

Lawyers representing those accused of wrongdoing could argue that, because so much has been said, heard and written about their clients’ involvement in Hillsborough or its aftermath, it would be impossible for them to get a fair trial.

That is not the case, however.

A number of legal precedents exist that state no matter how well known an accused may be, they can still be given a fair hearing in a public court of law.

Arguments include the ‘fade factor’ - which suggests the impact of past stories fades in the minds of jurors over the time between a suspect being charged and a resulting trial, a process which often takes months and months.

It is also established that jurors are capable of reaching fair decisions based solely on the evidence they hear in a trial, and that the ‘drama’ of the courtroom environment helps people focus simply on that which is put before them.

Jurors are also warned not to research their cases, or discuss their deliberations with non-jurors, by judges.

All of these factors explain why organisations, such as the ECHO, do not need to remove past stories and comment pieces from their websites.

The focus of contempt laws typically, therefore, rests on new material published once proceedings are active.

Which is why the media has to adhere to legal guidelines following the charging decisions - and why individuals using social media should be careful from today.

WHAT ABOUT THOSE NOT CHARGED?

The revelation of who has been charged means we also now know who will not face prosecution. As they are not a suspect, there are no ‘active’ proceedings against them.

So there is more freedom to comment on those decisions.

While you could not write, for instance, that it was the correct decision to charge a suspect and why, you could post that you disagree over the decision not to charge someone and explain your reasoning.

There is no potential jury to prejudice, so there is no fear of contempt.

Just be aware that those not charged could potentially sue for defamation if they can prove claims against them cause serious harm to their reputation and are not fair comment.