header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
20 October 2023 / William Gibson
Issue: 8045 / Categories: Features , Profession
printer mail-detail

A lady not for burning

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
143245
William Gibson on how an unsuccessful, widely-reported prosecution proved to be an unbeatable marketing tool

Any books which fell foul of the Obscene Publications Act 1857 could be shipped to a bonfire. When that Act was superseded in 1959 publishers knew that the new provisions and definitions would have to be tested in court before they could embark on a major print run.

Penguin Books decided in 1960 to publish a collection of works by D H Lawrence to mark the 30th anniversary of his death. One of the books was Lady Chatterley’s Lover (LCL). Written in 1928 it had been widely banned world wide because of the high sexual content and prolific use of four-letter words. They decided to invite prosecution to test the strength of the new Act so they delivered 12 copies to a police inspector. This constituted ‘limited distribution’ so proceedings were begun.

The book

The story is basically of a love affair between the sexually-deprived aristocratic Lady Constance Chatterley (whose husband was disabled in the First

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll