A juror has been fined £400 for flouting a judge's directions and discussing an ongoing trial in a pub.

Malcolm Stubbs chatted to other customers at the Bell In pub in Smarden, Ashford, about a case of causing death by careless driving he and the 11 others on the jury were hearing.

The man on trial was eventually acquitted.

A solicitor advocate who was in the bar and overheard the conversation and reported the matter to Judge Michael Lawson QC at Maidstone Crown Court.

Stubbs, landlord of the Bull Inn, Ashford Road, Bethersden, was ordered to appear before the judge on Friday for contempt of court.

He declined legal representation and admitted the charge.

Jurors are given firm instructions by judges at the start of a trial that they must not discuss it with anybody, including close family.

When Judge Lawson asked Stubbs, 43, if he did discuss the case, he replied: "Someone asked what I had been doing that day.

"I didn't think there was any harm in saying what I had been doing."

He said he thought the solicitor's letter sent to the court was "grossly exaggerated on certain points".

Stubbs added: "He makes me out to be an absolute ogre and dishonest person.

"I don't deny I discussed the case. I didn't mention any names. I did say it must have cost a lot of money for this trial to go ahead.

Asked about a suggestion he made no attempt to be discreet, he said: "I disagree I was loud.

"I didn't go into much detail, just a brief outline of what I had been doing that day."

Judge Lawson told Stubbs: "One of the things I did say right at the beginning was for various reasons there should be no discussion of the case until you reached a verdict.

"Clearly, this occurred before that. It is almost inevitable I will find there was a contempt.

"If you discuss a case, you are breaching the direction I gave at the beginning of the case."

Explaining his financial circumstances to pay the fine, Stubbs said: "The pub trade is quiet at the moment. I normally pay myself £100 a week."

Another trial had to be abandoned at the court recently after a juror carried out "research" on the internet in breach of a judge's direction.