Letter: Courts warning

Once again, social media has found itself the focus of the press. This time, a female juror faces an eight-month jail stint having been found guilty of contempt of court by using the internet (your report, 17 June). This is the first UK case of its kind.

During a 6 million drugs trial, the juror posted messages on the defendant's Facebook page.

Despite the judge reminding all the jurors that they must decide the case solely on evidence heard during the case in court, the juror conducted her own online research into the defendant, and revealed details of the jury's deliberations.

Although the defendant was later acquitted, the juror's actions meant the ten-week trial, which also involved several others defendants, collapsed.

We are increasingly hearing reports of jurors using technology to communicate with witnesses, or carrying out their own research. It has been suggested by some that the courts will simply not be able to control the ubiquity of social media or stop jurors from carrying out DIY investigations. Lord Macdonald, the former director of public prosecutions, suggested some time ago judges were "giving up" trying to prevent juries using Google, Facebook and Twitter to access information about those accused of crimes.

That is not the case. Any communication by a juror about the subject matter of a trial, no matter how it is communicated, is subject to strict contempt of court rules and will not be tolerated by the courts, as this juror found out to her detriment.

While she is undoubtedly being used to serve as a warning to other jurors; this warning is one that should be welcomed. We would be in danger of losing the respect and integrity of our court system if a strong stance had not been taken.

Naomi Pryde

Tods Murray

Fountainbridge

Edinburgh