A SOCIAL media storm that was like a "virtual lynching mob" led to the original trial of Angela Wrightson's killers being halted - at a cost to the taxpayer of tens of thousands of pounds.

An avalanche of vitriolic and chilling posts, described by Mr Justice Globe as "pejorative comments from ill-informed members of the public", meant the two teenage defendants could not have a fair trial last July, and he abruptly stopped the trial.

A jury sitting at Teesside Crown Court was discharged after they heard the prosecution opening and a day of evidence from a witness.

With a High Court judge, three QCs backed by junior counsel, a further three senior solicitors, intermediaries for the defendants, and local authority staff in attendance, the cost of the aborted trial, including two full days of legal arguments, will have been tens of thousands of pounds.

The cause was the hundreds of prejudicial comments made on Facebook while the case was on-going.

The legal teams and the judge focused on comments made by the public on the Facebook pages of media organisations.

Two Facebook pages set up by the victim's family also contained prejudicial comments.

During legal arguments, Nicholas Campbell QC, prosecuting, said: "I have categorised some of the more extreme comments that have been published on these platforms as those of a virtual lynching mob.

"It would not appear on the printed page, and it should not appear on the internet during the course of the trial."

Jamie Hill QC, defending the older girl, said: "The Sky Facebook page had 500 comments from one report and the Daily Mirror online generated dozens of comments."

Mr Justice Globe replied: "This is not a situation where these 500 comments are saying 'This is a terrible case, we are very sorry for the lady'."

Mr Hill said: "You would fully understand and expect that sort of comment.

"This has generated extremely vitriolic, almost hysterical comment against the defendants, against the trial process. It goes far beyond the normal comment which would be generated in a regular murder trial."

He said comments were threatening to the defendants, derisive of their not guilty pleas and dismissive of the court.

John Elvidge QC, defending the younger girl said in legal arguments: "This is an extraordinary case in many ways and the reaction to reporting on a platform provided by various media organisations has been extreme."

None of the parties complained about the press reports of the on-going trial. At issue was the ability of the public to post prejudicial comments which the jury and witnesses may read, even though they were directed not to look.

Many of the witnesses were teenagers, like the defendants, and were likely to be heavy Facebook users.

Mr Justice Globe said: "A large quantity of comments are chilling in the way they describe what should be the outcome of the trial process."

He added: "They go far beyond what may be described as abuse and angry bluster."