header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us

A lady not for burning

© Copyright LexisNexis 2025. All Rights Reserved.
20 October 2023 / William Gibson
Issue: 8045 / Categories: Features , Profession
printer mail-detail
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 When that Act was superseded in 1959 publishers knew that the new provisions and definitions would have to be tested in court before they could embark on a major print run.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
Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

Gilson Gray—Jeremy Davy

Gilson Gray—Jeremy Davy

Partner appointed as head of residential conveyancing for England

DR Solicitors—Paul Edels

DR Solicitors—Paul Edels

Specialist firm enhances corporate healthcare practice with partner appointment

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Gold on Awaab’s Law & digital divorce
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
NLJ this week: AI in the dock—courts need literacy, not fear
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
NLJ this week: Landlords lose their upward climb
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
NLJ this week: Privy Council undresses the ‘shareholder rule’
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
NLJ this week: Regan’s case of the year
Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School and the Frenkel Topping Group—AKA The insider—crowns Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP as his case of 2025 in his latest column for NLJ. The High Court’s decision—that non-authorised employees cannot conduct litigation, even under supervision—has sent shockwaves through the profession. Regan calls it the year’s defining moment for civil practitioners and reproduces a ‘cut-out-and-keep’ summary of key rulings from Mr Justice Sheldon
Copyright © 2025 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll