Shop owners were put at risk of prosecution last month after a potentially illegal magazine was dis­tributed to them to display on shelves last month, de­spite the publisher being aware of the issue.

The cover of the 20 May edition of the New Yorker focused on Lucy Letby, a nurse convicted of killing seven infants and at­tempting to kill six more.

Letby is facing a retrial this month, meaning do­ing anything that could sway the jury is a criminal offence (contempt of court) carrying a maximum sen­tence of up two years.

While the New Yorker had blocked the online article from being visible in the UK due to the legal issues, publisher Condé Naste, aided by distribu­tor Seymour, allowed the contentious print edition to be sent to stockists in the UK including numer­ous newsagents and major chains such as Sains­bury’s, WHSmith Travel and M&S.

The Press Gazette chal­lenged the publisher on the decision, with Condé Naste seeming to back down. Sanjay Shah of Mayhews News in Belgra­via said: “We had a warn­ing about a particular is­sue about three weeks ago. They asked us to remove it from sale and just send all copies back with our returns. It was the issue with the nurse.”

However, wholesaler communications to stores from Smiths News for the period did not show any early recall notice had been issued by Seymour or Condé Naste, and some stockists claimed they were not warned to re­move it from sale.

Vinay Patel of Jeffrey’s News in Battersea told RN: “We stock the New Yorker, but we haven’t heard anything about it in the last month. We haven’t had any no­tices.”

University of Leeds pro­fessor of media law Paul Wragg told RN the situa­tion created a risk of stock­ists ending up in court. He said: “What I’m about to say is not legal advice and is not to be construed as legal advice. This is merely a comment by a profes­sor of media law,” before saying: “Distributors have to be very careful on the issue of whether to stock the New Yorker. The safest avenue is not to stock it.”

Wragg explained that he had not read the article, but based on coverage he believes contempt of court “could arise” as the article “could create a substantial risk of prejudice to the outcome of the trial”.

Asked about whether it could land stockists in le­gal trouble, he responded: “Strictly, yes, there is a risk. Is it a high risk? Who knows.”

Describing the supply chain’s failure to warn all stockists, The Fed’s head of new Brian Murphy said: “The Fed would be aghast if this took place, mem­bers have legal support through the Fed member­ship. It’s important that there should be protec­tions against a problem like this happening again in the future.”