The Law Commission has launched a consultation on contempt laws in England and Wales in the wake of a number of high-profile cases which have seen current legislation challenged by the growing influence of modern media.

The commission – the statutory independent body which keeps the law under review and recommends reform where necessary – is reviewing the existing Contempt of Court Act 1981, which prevents the publication of any material that produces a substantial risk of prejudicing a fair trial.

As the law predates the internet age, a number of recent high-profile cases have prompted concerns in relation to jurors accessing prejudicial material online, such as tweets and blogs.

The consultation cites the example of the case involving juror Theodora Dallas, who was sentenced to six months in prison earlier this year for contempt of court after she researched a suspect online in 2011 and told jury members that the defendant had been previously accused of rape.

Meanwhile, earlier this year the judge overseeing football manager Harry Redknapp's tax evasion trial banned the use of Twitter in court after a reporter tweeted the name of a juror. The jury was subsequently discharged and a new jury sworn in.

The consultation, which will run until 28 February next year, is seeking views on:

- whether a specific offence of intentionally seeking information
related to the case that the juror is trying should be introduced;

- whether the Department for Education should look at ways to ensure greater teaching in schools about the role and importance of jury service; and

- whether courts should be given the power to temporarily remove potentially prejudicial material published before proceedings became active.

Reynolds Porter Chamberlain defamation and intellectual property partner David Hooper said: "It's an impressive survey and I think it addresses issues that needed to be looked at for some time now. It is worth looking at weighing up the extent to which jurors are really influenced by what they read.

"The internet poses a significant problem in proceedings, as it is clearly wrong for jurors to look up material on defendants online, yet 12% still seem to do so in high profile cases – the seriousness of conduct should be brought in by establishing it as a criminal offence, which I think is a likely outcome of the review and which is the law in Australia."

Addleshaw Goddard head of media litigation David Engel commented: "It is a timely consultation that is comprehensive – I didn't disagree with much of it, and its ideas seem sensible. What we are talking about is protecting the right to a fair trial in an age of instant internet access.

"One of the most important points, which was slightly buried, was raising awareness of the issues and the education of jurors who have grown up with access to the internet. To some extent, the onus is on the judiciary to be more forthright and clear on what people are not allowed to do when they are on a jury. The proposal that judges be given the power to require jurors to hand in their electronic devices when in Court is a sound one. As is the 'notice and takedown' suggestion for online newspaper archives."

"I suspect the outcome will focus on practical solutions to what are – in the main – practical, rather than legal, problems. It's all about finding ways to avoid access to the internet from interfering with the administration of justice."

The final report is expected to be published in spring 2014.

Click here for the full Law Commission consultation.

Related: