Judge criticises ‘appalling and sloppy’ BBC after high-profile trial collapses

Cirencester: So, there was this big trial where a woman named Sophie Harvey was accused of having an illegal abortion. It all fell apart because the BBC messed up their reporting, and a judge was not happy about it at all.

Harvey, who’s 25, was on trial for allegedly taking abortion pills when she was already too far along in her pregnancy. The law in England says you can’t have an abortion after 24 weeks, and she was at 28 weeks.

She and her boyfriend, Elliot Benham, also 25, admitted to buying the pills online. But Harvey insisted she never took them and that she gave birth to a stillborn baby at home back in September 2018.

During the trial at Gloucester Crown Court, the jury was sent home after the judge heard that the BBC had reported some really misleading stuff about the case. They showed footage of a crime scene and claimed that remains were found in the garden, which was totally wrong.

Harvey’s lawyer argued that this kind of reporting could really hurt her credibility. He pointed out that the BBC’s claims were completely false and could make the jury think she was lying about taking the pills.

The judge, Ian Lawrie, agreed that the BBC’s reporting was “appalling and sloppy.” He felt that the errors were so serious that they couldn’t just be fixed with a simple explanation to the jury.

After the judge dismissed the jury, the BBC apologized in court for their mistakes. A new trial is set for February 2025, but Harvey and Benham have already pleaded guilty to a different charge related to the case.

Now, they’ve got community service to do, and Harvey has to get some mental health treatment. The judge also made them pay a small surcharge. It’s a pretty wild situation, and it’s clear that the media’s role in trials is super important.