David,(posted 7322 days ago)The post is not in contravention of sub-judice rules and is unlikely to be a breach of the Defamation Action 1996 either.
Sub-judice rules restrict what you may say about an ongoing case. They vary according to the type of court involved. They are at their strictest in criminal law cases and at their loosest in civil law cases (as this case is). Sub-judice rules allow you to report the known facts of a civil case and even to add an opinion about an action you feel the public should take (provided you don't incite to violence, etc, which this chap has not done).
Defamation Act 1996. More complex. Again unlikely. He detailed the facts of the case and his view of his own innocence. That's unlikely to be called defamation in normal circumstances but as he has a case against him - public record - it is even less likely to be called defamation. The dispute and the stance of the two sides involved in it are public, factual, and the resolution of the opinion-based differences a civil matter.
The example of calling someone a paedophile does not hold up because paedophilia is a criminal act, not an act that is tried in a civil court.