The jailing of Joanne Fraill is a clear indication of why we must protect the eternal worth of the jury system

Last week, Joanne Fraill, a former juror, was sent to prison after she contacted a defendant on Facebook during a trial. Fraill not only revealed details of the jury's deliberations to the defendant, she also used the internet to unearth information about another defendant in the same case. The cost to the taxpayer of abandoning the case and retrying the defendants was ?6m.

Many reports focus on the fact that Ms. Fraill the first juror for contempt of court by the use of a social media site will be condemned. This is not the point. The Fraill uses Facebook is neither here nor there. The real problem is here revealed that, in this Internet age, it is always difficult to try cases without prejudice.

This is not the first time a trial has been jeopardised because jurors have taken matters into their own hands.

In 2008 was a homicide suspect collapsed free from court after his trial. A juror was visited and photographed the alleged crime scene investigated the case over the Internet, and shared his findings with his fellow jurors. He even sent the judge a Google Earth map of the alleged crime scene and 37 questions about the case. The judge had to stop the process and dismiss the entire jury.

A trial involving allegations of child cruelty was scrapped under similar circumstances, when a judge found, as it turned out, wrong information about the defendant online and shared this with his fellow jurors. The case was later repeated at a cost of tens of thousands of pounds to the taxpayer.

Lead to the Internet and the ease with which it makes its own overzealous judges "Research", a real threat to the integrity of our criminal justice system and trial by jury in particular. We can not allow. Trial by jury is a cornerstone of a free society, and recent research has shown how effective jury trials in deployment and maintenance are of justice.

First, although statistics suggest to jurors are much more likely to carry over for some crimes than others, the research shows that the logic and common sense practice. The highest conviction rates are found in cases where it is rather strong physical evidence that the defendant be charged. For example, juries convict charged more than nine in 10 of these with taking indecent photographs of children and four out of five people with drug possession.

Conversely, juries are reluctant to convict where the case turns on the assessment of \ one person's word against another, or in which they must reach a statement about a defendant 's state of mind. This is one reason why rape convictions can be difficult because of the prosecution 's perspective. But where there is sufficient evidence, a jury the defendant is guilty. Juries to convict in 55% of cases of rape.

Second, juries show no racial bias. Recent research confirms that black and Asian defendants are not more likely than white defendants convicted by juries and that ethnic minorities are not underrepresented on juries.

Third, juries are essential to protect defendants against prosecutions, perceived to be politically motivated. Take the case of Clive Ponting. In 1984 Ponting, a senior official in the Ministry of Defence document leaked to the Labour MP Tam Dalyell, about the sinking of the Argentine warship General Belgrano during the Falklands War. The documents showed that the Belgrano was sunk, while outside the Falkland Islands "exclusion zone and the direction away from the Naval Task Force, which was all very embarrassing to the Thatcher government.

Ponting admitted revealing the information and was charged under the Official Secrets Act. He claimed it was in the interest of Parliament and the public to know this information. The jury agreed. Although he expects to be jailed, and given the judge to the jury that they carry over, Ponting was acquitted.

A common accusation against juries is that juries can not understand complex cases. This issue was thrust into the limelight in 2005 when a high-profile, ? 60m fraud case - the "Jubilee line" trial - collapsed. The prosecution claimed that problems with the jury forced the judge to give up the attempt.

In fact, refers to a subsequent investigation jurors the evidence and legal evidence found quite conclusion that, far from being out of their depth, the jury \ showed "impressive familiarity with the charges, questions and information, despite the length of time elapsed was and the fact that they do not have their notes or access to documents ". Therefore, the government is entitled to jury trial defending freedom bill, the Stop the persecution of the situation, complex fraud cases tried without a jury would.

The message is clear: Jury trials are valuable. Juries exercise common sense, convict on the basis of the strength of the evidence of racial bias and protect against politically motivated charges. But we can only juries, where the whole investigation into the courtroom, a strict environment where every assumption and fact, inspected, tested and challenged through out is left. That 's why this last case could be the thin end of the wedge to be a trial.

In a recent survey, was one of four judges, the high-profile cases tried looking for information on cases online. This is not a controlled environment, can be relied upon in the information. A juror should not his information about a case from the Internet as a government should be copied to produce the official documents from Wikipedia. For example, if a judge sees a false rumor on the Internet that the defendant already has a conviction and shares this with the rest of the jury, it could undermine his chances of a fair trial.

The prison sentence handed down Fraill Joanne sends a clear message to jurors that the courts take very seriously contempt of court. However, when we get to trial by jury - the jewel in the crown of British justice - we need to do more than one person in jail.

If jurors can be trusted not to rely only on courtroom evidence during the proceedings, rather than via the Internet 's gossip and rumors, then we need to monitor and control Jurors' Internet activity during a trial. Giving up the cost to the taxpayer studies and retrying defendant is not acceptable, but even more serious is the risk that this practice is growing in our legal system and the integrity and effectiveness of the procedure before a jury of confidence.

If we do not act quickly, we risk seeing the threat become a reality. In the words of Lord Devlin: "Trial by jury is more than an instrument of justice and more than one wheel of the Constitution. It is the lamp that shows freedom of life" We must not allow anything to undermine.