A British juror was warned by a judge yesterday that she faces jail for contacting a defendant on the social networking site Facebook, causing the collapse of a major drugs trial.

In what is believed to be the first case of its kind in Britain involving the internet, juror Joanne Fraill admitted contempt of court at the High Court in London for chatting online with Jamie Sewart during a trial last year.

Britain’s Lord Chief Justice, Igor Judge, said Ms Fraill’s sentence would be announced tomorrow, but warned the sobbing woman he did not think there were any circumstances under which she could avoid jail.

Ms Fraill, 40, faces a maximum of two years in prison.

The judges also found that Ms Sewart – who ended up being acquitted during the trial last August – had also committed contempt by asking Ms Fraill for details of the jury’s deliberations. But the judges ruled the 34-year-old would receive a suspended sentence because she had suffered a lengthy separation from her baby during the earlier trial.

The charges were brought by Britain’s Attorney General over the collapse last year of one of a series of trials of an alleged drugs gang in Manchester, northwest England, that cost £6 million (€6.8 million).

Ms Fraill admitted making contact with Ms Sewart through Facebook while the trial was under way and revealing details of the jury’s deliberations while they were continuing.

She also carried out her own research into the case on the internet.

After tracking down Ms Sewart through Facebook, Ms Fraill told her in one conversation: “Can’t believe they had u on remand”, the BBC reported.

In another exchange, Ms Sewart replied: “Ha ha, ur mad. I really appreciate everythin. If i cud of kissed u all i would of done ha ha.”

Ms Fraill’s lawyer, Peter Wright, admitted it was “a most grave contempt” but told the court that during the trial Ms Fraill “came to feel considerable empathy towards the female defendant, Miss Sewart”.

The High Court is also dealing with an appeal by Ms Sewart’s boyfriend Gary Knox, who was convicted in the drugs case but argues that his sentence should be overturned because of misconduct by the jury.