Will the growing digital threat lead to jury lockdowns?

The internet is so ubiquitous that we may soon reach the point where it is unreasonable for a judge to expect jurors to reach their verdicts without prejudice.

Searching for answers, analysis and opinions via our smartphones or tablets is part of digital culture nowadays. We are in an age where not only do we seek information, it seeks us.

Internet cookies help Google and other services build profiles based on our web-browsing habits. That's why a fleeting search for a product, holiday destination or university course can see us pestered by advertisers.

Social media sites are equally smart. Complicated algorithms work hard to predict our interests. Inevitably, the internet will grow in sophistication to the point where computers will accurately second-guess our thoughts.

The internet is becoming increasingly embedded in everyday life. We don't need to plug in and boot up. Connectivity is all around us, constantly cluttering our minds if we let it.

In these circumstances, can we be blamed for what the internet puts in front of our eyes?

Warnings are rightly given to jurors about resisting the temptation to search for background information about a case or, worse still, tittle-tattle about defendants. The risks of doing so are obvious - justice will be jeopardised.

Whether juries understand the seriousness of this is unclear. Research by University College London published in 2013 showed that jurors are confused about the rules on internet use during a trial. In fact, 16 per cent wrongly believed they were banned from checking emails while on jury service.

No sympathy is given to contempt of court culprits by judges - even in the light of the internet's pervasiveness.

Kasim Davey, 21, from North London, was jailed for two months in July 2013 for sending a Facebook message about the child abuse case he was sitting on, while Joseph Beard, 29, of Esher, Surrey, was given the same sentence for using Google to research a fraud case and sharing his findings with fellow jurors.

Former Attorney General Dominic Grieve said that it is "absurd to suggest that such conduct should no longer be criminalised on account of the ease with which such offences can now be committed."

He is right for now. But will his comments sound outdated in a few years, when we may be unwittingly and unavoidably confronted by prejudicial material?

In the United States and other countries there is a tradition of jury lockdowns in extreme circumstances. Sequestration is perhaps the most effective way of keeping a jury untainted.

It is a costly step - at a guess it could cost taxpayers £5,000 a day, including appropriate security measures. For longer trials it may be unreasonable and impracticable to keep jurors from their families.

But it should be remembered that Crown Court trials cost around £30,000 a day and a retrial is likely to be ordered if a trial collapses because a jury has been compromised.

For some cases, it may be a price worth paying.

David Kirwan is a senior partner at Kirwans

www.kirwanssolicitors.co.uk