At my trial in 2001 the Judge in my case clearly was not aware of the Internet but many (including myself) were regular users and The Guardian was the prime media source. Any juror searching my name would have found reports about my arrest - and charges which were clearly NOT a part of my trial (and, indeed, later ordered abandoned by the judge).

Their natural interpretation - incorrect - would have been "he's done it before; he must have done it this time". As opposed to the truth "he DIDN'T do it before and this trial might also feature false allegations".

When I approached my solicitor about pointing this out to the judge, he shrugged and said "what can he do about it?". My suggestion - ignored - was to do what judges now do - tell jurors NOT to access the Internet.

It does sometimes pay to not be famous!
Not a single mention of me,or my trial online.