Police are investigating an advert placed in a regional daily which calls for jury members in a murder case to come forward.
The Lancashire Evening Post published an advert on 30 April which asked for jurors who were on the trial of Ian Workman to give their views on new evidence for a “documentary”.
Workman was convicted in 2011 of murdering his estranged wife Sue and jailed for at least 17-and-a-half years.
The advert, which was published in the title for two days before being withdrawn at the request of police, offered £1,000 for jury members who come forward.
It claims to be from a company called Regie Productions, but was actually placed by Workman’s family in a bid to clear his name.
It is understood that the LEP took legal advice before publishing the advert but police raised concerns with the title after its publication, asking for it to be withdrawn.
The Bolton News reports that Lancashire Constabulary is now looking into the advert to see if any offence has been committed because it is illegal to disclose or seek information about a jury’s deliberations.
Workman’s son Grant told the News that the plan was to create a film of the jurors discussing fresh evidence about the case, before publishing it on YouTube, and said legal advice had been taken by the family before placing the advert.
He said: “We have had quite a few people contact us but have not set up an interview yet.
“We are not approaching jurors, we are inviting them to talk to us. We have checked and checked the law and we are not breaking any laws.
“We have put the advert out as we want to know whether the new evidence would have affected the outcome.”
The jury in Workman’s trial agreed with prosecutors that he killed his wife, stabbing her while she was typing up an account of their rows.
He then stabbed himself in the stomach in a bid to disguise the crime and told police that his ex-wife had attacked him.
Millionaire car dealer Workman, who has always maintained his innocence, attempted to overturn his conviction in the Court of Appeal last year but his bid failed.
The Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 inserted into the Juries Act 1974 a new provision making it an offence to disclose information about a jury’s deliberations or to solicit or obtain such information.
LEP editor Gillian Parkinson told HTFP she could not comment because there was an ongoing police investigation.
Sign up for our free daily email bulletin
Follow HTFP on Twitter
Got a story? Email the Editor at
Stunned that a big paper, with experienced staff, should carry such an advert. And appalled at the amateur nature of the ad itself. Since when was anybody “any body”, or anyone “any one”? The LEP should hang its head in shame on all counts. And there is absolutely no reason why the Editor should not give a general quote about the issue, even a fairly neutral one. There is no sub judice issue….yet.
Report this comment
The thing is, it is an ad. Sold by a baby ad rep, designed somewhere overseas probably, placed by a page planner on a template and probably these days not seen by editorial until it’s printed. I know that ad reps are trained to spot REALLY dodgy ads, but I suspect that their training does not extend to the finer legal points of criminal procedure. Proof reading? What’s that? No-one has time any more, the editor is dealing with Newport, and even if they do proofread the ads might not appear on the page before it has to be signed off. Even when I were a lass dodgy ads would sometimes get through & these days the ad department is king. In short, the editor’s responsibility, in cases like this, is to take the rap for something she probably knew nothing about until the proverbial hit the fan.
Report this comment
Who did the LEP seek legal advice from? They ought to demand their money back from the shysters.
Report this comment
I really think the ad manager or advertising director should be hauled up to comment on advertising fails like this. Someone in the advertising chain of command should know enough about the law to make a call on this. Reporters know to speak to editors if they have an inkling of concern, not sure whether sales people ever do. The usual imbalance of abilities. Most reporters have full legal training before starting work, why not the same for sales people, who probably have a similar starting pay?
Report this comment
So Newsquest gets a bashing even though it doesn’t produce the Lancashire Evening Post. I’m glad that GladImOutOfIt isn’t a reporter working on a paper I sub for because obviously his or her copy can’t be trusted. Get your facts right before you start making accusations. The LEP is a Johnston Press paper so won’t be subbed at Newport.
Report this comment
Are they that desperate for advertising revenue ?
Report this comment
I’m not easily stunned – but I’m stunned. Heads should roll.
Report this comment
Any day, another drop in standards here at LEP Towers. Imminent redundancy will be a blessed relief.
Report this comment
Wouldn’t have touched that with a bargepole. Still…ker-ching!
Report this comment
I agree with the very valid comments above, but did no-one at LEP actually think this was a NEWS story and look into it themselves? I’m sure if they had done so they would have soon discovered the true nature of the ‘documentary’ and exposed what the family was up to. One can only assume the advertising and editorial depts. don’t talk to each other, or was a few quid the prime concern!
Report this comment
We asked the same question but apparently the case was a Bolton story ie out of the LEP’s patch.
Report this comment
Old Sub, London: I’m sorry, you’re right, must have missed the takeover – when I worked there it was United Newspapers, which eventually became Newsquest. When did it happen?
Report this comment
Doesn’t make much difference to the tenor of my comment, though. Just for “Newport” read a multitude of titles & almost no subs
Report this comment
I like it.
Report this comment
The only thing I find shocking about this is how quickly an independent newspaper caved in to the demands of the police to not run the advert. Although there are very strict laws relating to speaking with members of a jury it is possible. For those who doubt it the BBC investigations into the possible miscarriage of justice of Colin Norris demonstrate this. There’s even a nice little panel in this BBC article describing how it is possible.
In any event any breech of the law would be by the person interviewing the juror – not a newspaper carrying an advert which is merely acting as a communication conduit. Whatever happened to editorial independence?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-31021447
Report this comment
The advertiser has certainly got their monies worth. It has been picked up by several major tabloids, online news outlets, BBC News and on here…. a few quid well spent.
Report this comment
Bob the Builer – is that a typo or am I missing something? – writes of a ‘breech in the law’. he means ‘breach’. Tut, tut. Journos, eh? What can you do with ’em? BTW the rest of Bob’s observations are complete tosh.
Report this comment
To Pete from London, who says the Ad Manager should be called to account. Of course he/she should, but the buck stops, for ALL content, with the Editor, and this used to be enshrined (not sure about these days) in the JP rule book. Clause 4 as I recall. Whatever the position, the Editor is the figurehead and should be visible and audible in a crisis, head above the parapet. The “ongoing police investigation” cop out (see what I did there?) for not commenting is bad form in my book. Show some leadership spirit!
Report this comment