Ubiquitous nature of online news will not trip over it increasingly difficult for the judges on trial details

The Sun and the Daily Mirror on trial for contempt of court over their reporting on the Joanna Yeates 's murder case, in particular the arrest of Chris Jefferies, Yeates' landlord, who later released without charge.

Proceedings against newspapers under the contempt of Court Act 1981 brought quite rare, although courts are increasingly fighting the problem of judges conducting online research.

There have been two landmark cases in contempt of this year, with the jury and the Internet. But was the news that these cases are sent entirely consistent? In the Facebook juror Joanne Fraill case was for eight months in prison. The court was trying to emphasize that prison sentences were necessary to ensure that "this unpleasant event" has remained the exception.

He pointed out that "the problem is not so on the Internet: the possible problems arising from the activities of the jurors, the long-established principles that underpin the right of every citizen to a fair trial disregard".

She explained that Internet research by jurors provide no evidence in the case (and judgments can not rely on them) and may be inaccurate or incomplete.

During the process, from which came the contempt case, the judge had expressly directed and the other jurors Fraill "do not go on the net during this process to occur to any significant problems \ explore." Jurors are also banned (for life) to disclose their discussions with third parties.

And so it followed that flouting those fundamental prohibitions, which undermine the sanctity of our jury system, would inevitably result in serious consequences. The overall message was clear: the problem does not lie with the internet (including the availability of almost any information on it and its considerable power to locate another person) but rather with errant jurors and defendants.

But the result is difficult, the court 's views of three months earlier in the contempt case, on-line for the Sun and the Daily Mail square. Both newspapers have published photos online of a defendant on trial for posing with a gun murder, the images still on the newspaper 'websites for a few hours. The study was not stopped, but the court stated that the publication had caused a substantial risk of prejudice. Even if the papers had intended to cause any disadvantage, they were obligated to provide a kind of contempt of court have to.

The reasons for such strict contempt laws, that for the fact that in Great Britain, in contrast to the United States, we are very limited jury have vetting and so harmful materials must be monitored carefully before and during the process to compensate . But in its decision, the court underlined the "viral \ nature" of the material on the Internet and the near-impossibility to control its spread. It also ruled that jurors could the offending image, without the trial judge 's have accessed directions: he had merely said, "not consult [the] Internet about this case" \ not "Do not go to all the online "and the image was accessed through the newspaper 'websites. The clear message was that jurors trust judges 'obey directions - what seems to be hard to square with the Facebook case.

It seems that no one agree on the issue. Lord Macdonald QC, former Director of Public Prosecutions believes that policing the accuracy of the information on the Internet is "an unmanageable task". He believes that it is not an attempt invalid when jurors will have been conducted online research, while a case is underway. In fact, a report found on the Ministry of Justice in February that 12% of the jurors in high profile cases, do just that approved, and another 26% said they would have come online media reports during the trial.

Nevertheless, the Attorney General, Dominic Grieve, argues that "Of course not trust a jury a case on the Internet search should be referenced as \."

No doubt, jurors, defendants and newspapers tend to be a violation of the rules in the light of these contempt cases. But the scale of the problem should be recognized and the strong messages from the court must be entirely consistent.

Alex Bailin QC is a lawyer specializing in human rights Matrix Chambers