The New Yorker magazine published a 13,000-word article on Monday about one of Britain’s largest recent criminal trials, that of neonatal nurse Lucy Letby, who was convicted last year seven babies murdered.
The article, written by staff writer Rachel Aviv, raises substantive questions about the evidence relied upon by the court. This raises the possibility that Ms Lebby will be vilified in the media following her conviction and that she may be the victim of a serious miscarriage of justice.
However, to the consternation of many UK readers, the article could not be opened on regular local browsers, and most news outlets in the UK failed to describe its contents.
The New Yorker deliberately blocked the article from British readers because of strict reporting restrictions on live court cases in the UK. Publications that violate these rules may be held in “contempt of court” and may be subject to fines or imprisonment.
Neither The New Yorker nor its parent company, Condé Nast, responded to requests for comment Thursday.Earlier this week, a spokesperson for the magazine tell the pressBritish business publication, “The New Yorker has restricted access to Rachel Aviv’s article to UK readers in order to comply with a court order restricting media coverage of Lucy Letby’s ongoing trial.”
Under British law, coverage of live court proceedings is restricted to prevent juries being influenced by anything other than court hearings. Those restrictions were lifted after Ms Lebby was sentenced last August.But in September, when prosecutors in England and Wales announced they would seek retrial exist one time charge The jury failed to reach a verdict on attempted murder. Prosecutors said: “There should be no reporting, commentary or sharing of information online that could in any way prejudice these proceedings.” The retrial is scheduled to begin in June.
Ms Lebby has asked for permission to appeal against her conviction.After a three-day hearing last month, a panel of Court of Appeal judges said it would make a decision on the request later.
In the UK, those trying to read The New Yorker’s article on internet browsers received an error message: “Oops. Our apologies. This is almost certainly not the page you were looking for.” But the block didn’t Not comprehensive: This article can be read in print in stores in the UK and on The New Yorker’s mobile app.
Questions about its availability in the UK have sparked debate around reporting restrictions in the UK, their effectiveness and their role in the justice system.
Speaking in Parliament on Tuesday, Conservative MP David Davis, a former cabinet minister, questioned whether limiting reporting in this case would undermine the principles of open justice, which allow the public to scrutinize and understand the law. operation.
“I understand that this article has been banned from publication on the UK internet due to a court order,” Mr Davies said. “I’m sure the court’s order was well-intentioned, but in my view it shows contempt for open justice.”
He was able to raise the issue because comments he made in the House of Commons were legally protected, so-called “legal protection”. parliamentary privilege. Media organizations have a more limited form of protection, called qualified privilege, to accurately report speech in Parliament.
Responding to a question from Mr Davies, Justice Secretary Alex Chalk said: “A court order must be complied with and a person can apply to court to have them removed. “This would need to be done under normal circumstances. “
Mr Chalk added: “In relation to the Lucy Lebby case, I just stress that the jury’s verdict must be respected. If there are grounds for appeal, it should be done in the normal way.”
