Former juror Joanne Fraill, who was sitting for a multimillion-pound court case in Manchester last year when it emerged she’d made contact via Facebook with one of the defendants, was convicted last week for contempt of court. She was sentenced to eight months in prison.

As well as the oath which all jurors swear when chosen to sit (“I swear ... that I will faithfully try the defendant and give a true verdict according to the evidence”), jurors are directed not to discuss the trial with anyone except other jury members once the trial begins. Even the Direct Gov website emphasises they must not discuss the trial on websites like Facebook and Twitter. 

Ms Fraill apparently felt “empathetic” towards the defendant, Jamie Sewart, and saw “considerable parallels” between their lives. Sewart herself was also found guilty of contempt and given a two month jail sentence, suspended for two years. A full transcript of their online conversation has been published by the Guardian here.

In a written ruling, the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, said: “Her [Fraill’s] conduct in visiting the internet repeatedly was directly contrary to her oath as a juror.” And while acknowledging that Fraill was “a woman of good character” he explained that the “misuse of the Internet by a juror” was “a most serious irregularity and contempt”. Fraill’s sentence is clearly intended to deter future jurors: “The jury system is a cornerstone of our society and confidence in this vital part of our criminal justice system will crumble if jurors do not take their responsibilities seriously.” He added, “The Internet doesn’t make judges’ warnings not to talk about a case or research it any less important.”

This isn’t the first time a juror has ignored directions not to discuss a case.  You might remember an episode back in 1993 when a jury which had been sent to a hotel overnight used a makeshift ouija board to ask whether the defendant was guilty of two murders. The judge had to order a retrial. Fraill’s case is interesting nevertheless, because it comes only a matter of days after a warning by the Attorney General about the widespread breach of a court order on Twitter relating to a Premier League footballer.

The decision to prosecute Fraill, and the sentence imposed by the Court, demonstrate very clearly that users of the internet are not beyond the law. It is no defence whatsoever to say that social media renders court orders unenforceable, or that rules about jury trial cannot coexist with Facebook or Twitter.

So, to anyone contemplating defiance of the Court using the false anonymity of the web, my advice is simple: don’t. Regardless of how many others may have done the same, if the law comes after you, you will be on your own.