Posted by Philip Martin, senior caseworker at Legal Futures Associate Internet Erasure Ltd [1]
Martin: The justice system must catch up
In UK courtrooms, jurors promise to decide cases only on the evidence heard in court. Yet, away from the jury box but in the privacy of their homes or phones, many cannot resist the urge to Google a defendant’s name or background.
That single search can quietly unravel the fairness of a trial, undermining the presumption of innocence at the heart of British justice.
Juror misconduct through online research is not new, but it remains dangerously under-addressed. Research reported by The Guardian [2] found that 44% of jurors admitted wanting to look up legal terms or case participants online, and 26% had considered researching defendants or witnesses directly.
What jurors discover online – even if outdated, misleading or outright false – can shape how they interpret new evidence and ultimately how they reach their verdict.
The psychological effect known as confirmation bias, where first impressions shape how subsequent facts are interpreted, is well documented.
We see this as one of the most overlooked risks to a defendant’s right to a fair trial. Law firms across the UK are increasingly instructing us before trials to audit and manage the online footprint of their clients.
Most juror misconduct is never discovered – even a single misleading search result can tip a juror’s mindset from ‘not sure’ to ‘sure’ – undermining the presumption of innocence.”
We recommend that solicitors conduct a pre-trial digital footprint audit for every defendant. This should include identifying prejudicial content and taking proactive steps, such as using the right to be forgotten in article 17 of GDPR, to delist harmful results from Google and other search engines.
Removing anything that could be perceived negatively helps to protect a client’s right to a fair trial. Failing to do this, can allow bad character evidence in by the back door
Content needing removal from Google is wide-ranging. Examples include:
- Past allegations, convictions or acquittals – a historic cannabis caution still ranking in Google search results during a class A drugs trial, unfairly colouring jurors’ perception of the defendant.
- Embarrassing or damaging social media posts – old drunken photos or aggressive comments resurfacing online when the defendant is on trial for a nightclub assault.
- Historic financial records – bankruptcy or company liquidation reports appearing on Google while the defendant faces fraud charges, prejudicing how jurors interpret their financial conduct.
- Lifestyle evidence online – a defendant charged with causing serious injury by dangerous driving whose name search reveals modified cars, track events and car-cruising forums, reinforcing an image of recklessness.
- Contemporaneous online commentary – archived forum posts or years-old comments resurfacing during trial, wrongly presented by Google results as if they were relevant evidence of character.
Using article 17 GDPR, formally the right to erasure, is not about removing evidence or hiding facts. It is about ensuring that verdicts are based solely on court-tested evidence, not on misleading Google snippets or sensational headlines.
As trials increasingly intersect with digital lives, the justice system must catch up.
Digital hygiene should now be a standard defence practice in the UK, particularly for high-profile or sensitive cases. Until then, British justice remains at risk of being decided not in courtrooms, but on search engines.