I understand Seibold is not interested in defamation. He wants criminal proceedings brought against those he alleges cyber-bullied him and therefore went to the police. Accordingly, the NRL has shelved their investigations because police are conducting theirs. In any case, whether it's defamation or a criminal matter, when you say "you have to go to a court and prove they did. They don’t have to do jack sh*t.", isn't that the case anyway at trial, where the prosecution has to prove its case on the facts? And the defence's job is just that, defend the accusations, which isn't jacksh*t. Seibold's task - an admittedly very difficult one - is to produce the hard evidence hence the police, whose job it is to investigate, whether they laugh at it (probably Roosters supporters) or not. And if they laugh at Seibold's case and "then move on to actual criminal investigations", then that says a lot about the NSW Police.
Since Seibold isn't looking at defamation, the issue of damages doesn't arise. There is no hip pocket wanting to be filled. As he is seeking criminal proceedings and not defamation, then of course he is paying for it. And good on him. He's been bullied and he wants justice. I hope he gets it.
People have an interesting view of police. They seem to think based on US television that it is up to them, whether police charge someone or not. It isn’t. People may make a complaint, but police decide whether to charge or not, the individuals involved and with what. Seibold may well want the police to charge someone, but that doesn’t mean they will.
Now the only likely offences NSW Police can be investigating, if indeed they are investigating anything, unless there is far more to the story than we have been told about, is either Criminal Defamation (if NSW has such an offence), or a Commonwealth offence of Using a Carriage Service, to threaten, Menace or Harass.
The difference between doing it yourself and complaining to the police, is who gathers the evidence, and what ability they have to gather said evidence, and who then presents it to court and how. Police have far more extensive powers available to them to gather evidence, than private investigators or lawyers ever will. They have specialist units, such as forensic computer experts, surveillance operatives and the ability to intercept data, calls and sms / mms during investigations...
When they decide to prosecute, police have trained litigators and / of the office of the DPP to present their case. All of that is why the courts lean so heavily in favour of the defendant’s rights so often, because the weight of ‘power’ in this scenario is clearly with the State.
Now civilly with a legal team, private forensic computer examiners and so on, you can mimic these investigative resources to some degree, but you have to do and fund it all yourself. You have to go to court and present your case, you have to endure all the issues police taken on when they go to court acting on your behalf, with the defendant’s rights and so forth, you don’t have the Crown, arguing on your behalf, it’s all on you and whatever you can convince the court to go along with.
The point about ‘laughing at it’ is in terms of the seriousness of the matter and whether it even constitutes an offence. There is no offence for ‘cyber bullying’ because it is an entirely subject term. What is bullying to you, could be considered banter by others and you can’t legislate on that. What they have legislated on, Federally at least anyway, is repeated such behaviour directed at one specific person, hence the ‘Using a Carriage Service’ offence I mentioned before.
What the NSW police have to decide is whether gossiping about an NRL coach’s private life on social media, constitutes the term ‘harassing’. Hence why I said they’d laugh it. Not the act, but the fact Seibold even bothered making a complaint about this, because again on the public facts known, I can’t see it going anywhere as a “criminal” matter...