Wednesday briefing: How outdated reporting rules fuel misinformation in high-profile trials

An inquest opens today into the deaths of five babies murdered by Lucy Letby, highlighting the complex legal framework that governs crime reporting in the UK. The case underscores the growing tension between traditional media bound by strict legal constraints and social media platforms where speculation runs rampant.

In England and Wales, journalists navigating high-profile criminal cases face a web of legal restrictions that don’t apply to individual social media users. The New Yorker’s 13,000-word article on the Letby case, temporarily blocked for UK readers, exemplifies this disparity in reporting freedom between the UK and US.

Media lawyer and former journalist David Banks explains that UK reporting constraints stem from the Contempt of Court Act 1981, which aims to balance free speech with fair trial rights. “What the law is trying to prevent is material that creates a substantial risk of serious prejudice,” Banks says. “You’re not gagged from reporting that something has happened, or from covering proceedings – but you cannot publish material that goes to the substance of what the jury is going to be asked to decide.”

This distinction means journalists can report courtroom proceedings but cannot speculate on motives, publish disputed evidence, or reveal previous convictions – information that might influence jurors before they’ve heard the case. In contrast, American media routinely publish prior convictions, reflecting fundamentally different approaches to justice and reporting.

The challenge, Banks notes, is that these rules were designed for a different media landscape: “The law was built to restrain a relatively small number of powerful publishers. It was never designed to cope with millions of individual users posting instantly, often from outside the UK.”

Recent incidents like the Southport stabbings and the Liverpool victory parade car-ramming attack demonstrate how quickly misinformation spreads online while traditional media organizations are still determining what they can legally report. This creates an information gap where mistrust and conspiracy theories flourish.

Privacy law adds another layer of complexity. Following landmark cases involving Cliff Richard and an unnamed banker, even reporting an arrest is no longer automatically permissible. “If someone is arrested in public – at a protest, for example – there’s no expectation of privacy,” Banks explains. “But if police turn up at your door at six in the morning and no one sees it, that’s now treated as a private event.”

The Letby case also involves court orders maintaining the anonymity of victims and their parents, with journalists covering the Thirlwall inquiry requiring special accreditation and watching delayed video feeds to prevent accidental disclosure of identifying details.

Libel law remains a powerful constraint as well. The rise of “no win, no fee” arrangements has widened the pool of potential claimants, increasing the legal risk surrounding contentious reporting. However, media organizations with solid evidence still pursue important stories, as demonstrated by The Guardian’s successful defense against actor Noel Clarke’s libel action.

The legal framework continues to evolve, with McNae’s Essential Law for Journalists – the industry’s legal bible – expanding from 200 pages when Banks began training to more than 600 pages today. Journalists must now navigate contempt laws, libel, privacy, data protection, youth anonymity, sexual-offense reporting, and even specialized knowledge like the Education Act 2011, which prohibits naming teachers accused of abusing pupils until proceedings reach a certain stage.

What might appear as media hesitancy on sensational stories trending on social media is often careful navigation of this complex legal landscape – one that increasingly doesn’t apply equally to everyone participating in public discourse online.

As the Letby inquest proceeds, it serves as a reminder of the delicate balance between public interest, legal constraints, and the right to a fair trial in an era where information flows freely but unevenly across platforms.