The lawyer who revealed two jurors in the infamous Skaf rape case in Sydney had visited a crime scene has won about $82,000 in a defamation claim against a website.

The Skaf brothers, Bilal and Mohammed, had to be retried for the rape of a 16-year-old girl in 2000 after it emerged the two jurors in the original trial had made an unauthorised visit to the crime scene.

There was public outrage at the time, particularly when the victim said she was unable to testify a second time.

An online forum website called ZGEEK had multiple posts under a thread Tool of the Week in 2005, attacking the lawyer who exposed the situation.

The transgression came to light after one of the jurors disclosed the matter to the lawyer, who reported it to the court as part of her duty as a practitioner.

Many of the comments on the website contained offensive language and attacked the woman for disclosing details which eventually saw lesser sentences for both men.

The lawyer was also attacked in another thread, under the title Bitching and Rants, on the same site.

The woman told the court the comments suggested she was an unjust and indecent person, and that she was responsible for Bilal Skaf's retrial and reduced sentence.

When the woman discovered the material in 2009 and asked for an apology, a second round of comments were opened up on the site.

There were comments from some contributors supporting her actions on both occasions, but the woman told the court she had been brought into hatred, ridicule and contempt, and was gravely disparaged.

She said the comments had injured her reputation, causing her to suffer loss and damage, including damage to her business and professional reputation.

She said she was shocked when the second round of commentary started, which included posts from one user that condemned the lawyer.

"I had chest pains because I realised that he wasn't going to stop, even though I'd sent him the letters of concern, so it heightened my fears of, you know, what was going on and who he was," she said.

"He was a person I had never met or heard of before.

"It really just worried me that I was his target and I didn't know why I was his target."

The website operator had tried to argue the material was not defamatory because it was protected by qualified privilege and was fair comment.

But ACT Supreme Court Justice John Burns found that was not the case and the matter discussed was not one of public interest.

He found at least some of the posts had defamed the woman, ordering the operator of the site to pay $82,000 in damages.

Ahead of the re-trial for the Skaf brothers, the New South Wales Government changed the law so the victim's evidence from the first trial could be used again.

Both men, who were already serving other sentences, were convicted, but their maximum sentences were reduced.