Controlling the Narrative: The role of the media in Miscarriages of Justice

Seema Misra - falsely accused and wrongly convicted when she was pregnant

I attended the Empowering the Innocent (ETI) conference earlier this year at Bristol University and I had a gentleman standing near me and I recognised his face. It was Seema Misra’s husband, Davinder, and I started to talk to him. The upshot was that he asked me if I could write an article on the role of the media in miscarriages of justice and I said that I would. On going to visit them and having a talk about it, I came to understand Davinder’s cause of interest. In October/November 2010, their local newspaper printed the headline “Pregnant thief convicted” regarding the conviction of his innocent wife Seema, who was convicted on no evidence, as the judge himself stated – and I would find that hard to believe if it hadn’t happened to me – and subsequently innocent, pregnant Seema was taken into custody. In his distress, Davinder went round all the local shops and newsagents and bought every copy of the paper. That’s devotion for you. We all know NOW that Seema was innocent, but they didn’t back then. Smiling resilient Seema Misra OBE was put in jail pregnant when the Post Office and Fujitsu and all the executives and lawyers knew there was something wrong with the Horizon system. Not only that, we now know the previous system “Capture” was also faulty and innocent people were convicted and jailed for the same false narrative: it must have been you. But it wasn’t.

The media

To most social scientists, the media is like water to a fish or air to a human, it’s so central to the understanding of society that we can almost take it for granted (e.g. https://www.thesociologyteacher.com/media-sociology-revision): or I did at this point. It didn’t occur to me, being so familiar with the “media and society” narrative, as it were, that people would be surprised at what goes on, as we have seen only this weekend (8/11/2025) where two BBC executives have resigned as a result of an egregious edit to President Trump’s speech at the Capitol in 2021, and the subsequent attempted cover-up, a classic example of trying to control the narrative.

In sociology, the structures that create the media are part of the subject itself. In the current age of mass media imagining society functioning without it is hard to do. TV, radio, newspapers, magazines, the whole cacophony of the jabbering class dominates the airwaves, the homes, clubs, pubs, offices and shops across the nation. 24/7 news outlets provide plenty of work for curiously regularly appearing commentators and correspondents. Mobile phones spread fact and fiction to the population non-stop. The corporate media giants are looked at suspiciously. Famously in significant military coups, like Russia or Ireland, the first stop of the insurgents was the radio station or, at least the Post Office in Ireland’s case in 1916. The medium is the narrative and the narrative is all-powerful. That’s why the rebels go for the radio station. It’s the sociological version of the jugular. In previously communications-poor countries in the 20^th century, to own the radio waves WAS to control the narrative.

The time I really noticed the power of the narrative was in the  mid-1980s when I noticed in the back of my mind some sort of uncomfortable feeling about the Union Jack, the British flag. Some time later I realised that it had been emanating from Channel 4 news that had emerged in 1982 as an alternative news channel. Now we see, 40 years later, the contention over the flag: that started with Channel 4 news and the publishing, in the same year, by Cambridge University Press (no less) of Geuss’ book “The Idea of a Critical Theory”. So-called post-modernism had begun, which led to “Woke”, concealing its Marxist origins. But talking of origins, where did the media come from|?

Origins

In my more whimsical moments, I like to think of the first medium to be Hammurabi’s famous stele which gave all the prices and laws which applied to the local residents of Mesopotamia (others see the start in “The Epic of Gilgamesh” which is a fascinating read). In more recent times, the power of the pulpit came to the fore, followed by the printing press that, although too expensive in terms of books for ordinary folk,  by the 17^th century, became huge numbers of “pamphlets”, often secretly printed, which then caused the government to introduce the law of seditious libel, meaning you could say anything you like, other than criticise the government.

This was one of the sparks of the Enlightenment and “liberal democracy” that fuelled a thousand lawsuits and helped create the free society we enjoy today, flawed as it may be. In 1914 R v Aldred overturned seditious libel per se as long as the defendant didn’t incite violence, i.e. you can criticise the government but don’t call for its destruction. Now we have a free press, yes, but still possibly libellous as in Seema’s case and many other cases, sadly.

This still leaves the media free to say pretty much what it likes, except about extant court cases and making false statements. When the case is finished, they can say what they like and in Seema’s case they did. The only problem was that what they said was incorrect: Seema was not a “thief”. If the newspapers concerned had done their job, they would have known Seema was innocent. But that wasn’t the narrative.

The Narrative: What IS the Narrative?

There are two clear meanings of narrative. One is “a” narrative which applies to stories in the literary sense in books, or the beliefs of certain people about anything. “The” narrative is something quite different. THE narrative is an over-arching belief system that subumes individual beliefs and, perhaps, even individuals’ knowledge, as the story that lies behind it becomes so deeply imbedded in the mindset of the culture, we don’t even think about it, like water to a fish and air to a human and the media to social scientists.

In Western culture, Christian morality is one such belief system, even if the individual isn’t Christian. Christian love, for example, has transmuted into the “Duty of Care” caused by the Snail in the Bottle case of 1932 (an important case, in fact). In the West it was the legal system had such a hold on the subconscious western mind. We have - or had – confidence in the legal system to provide justice. I still believe it can provide such justice, but it is frequently delayed in many cases, such as the Post Office Scandal, by unacceptable institutional pressures and a false narrative that refuses to accept the decision made could be wrong, especially when a jury is used.

The history of England, and later Britain after 1707, is a grand narrative, from Alfred the Great burning the cakes, the Fire of London and Waterloo and all the various little stories that dot the story; it’s “1066 and All That” (Sellar and Yeatman, 1930). All these narratives wind into one narrative to be displayed at great ceremonial events; but one thing is needed to spread the narrative: media of one sort or another, including word-of-mouth, whether the parson at his pulpit, or the Town Cryer with his bell. Uniforms and pageantry give the narrative credibility.

To coin a phrase, however, all politics is local. The real crime against the post-masters was the destruction of their respectability and credibility. They saw themselves, and were seen as, upright members of society, they were a central institution in the local town or village. People valued their service: then they were accused of being thieves and, what’s more, were wrongly convicted as such. Perhaps if the legal system didn’t have such a good reputation more scepticism would have been expressed, but most middle-of-the-road citizens don’t indulge in seditious libel, they trust the great institutions of Church, Monarch and Parliament (if not state). If a jury found you guilty, you must be guilty, that is the narrative. I admit to having been one of those. I believe in English law. I believe in the jury system. I do not, however, believe in the legal profession in any part: one of the first lessons I had at St. Albans School (in Hertfordshire) was the “Bloody Assize” of Judge Jeffries. Being an avid history reader, I do not hold a high esteem for those in the legal profession who can argue one case one day and make exactly the opposite the next. I, for one, joined the debating society, but I never saw the integrity in being able to defend the indefensible one day and prosecuting the reverse the next.

Other Narratives

My particular hated narrative is the anti-capitalist Marxist narrative. In its very simplest form, capitalism is the most successful distribution system in history. What makes it work is private ownership and profit. That gives people the motivation to take products where they’re needed and at the most favourable price, both for the customer and the producer. The anti-white supremacist, anti-colonial narrative has slipped into the media narrative. The acceptance of the “error” of using fossil fuels and the “wisdom” of using renewables was accepted by some news outlets such as the BBC and SKY as accepted science. So much for free debate. Such narratives, once embedded, are hard to dig out but sceptical voices are starting to prevail, thanks mainly to disruptors such as GB News.

In other words, narratives are powerful and often stealthy. In Seema’s case, the offending headline came out between the wrongful conviction and the actual sentence: “Prison for top post mistress who stole £75,000.” That, in itself, is a questionable practice. Having a negative portrayal of the individual can be seen as promoting a heavier sentence, subconsciously. In the wider scheme of things the whole narrative that extended out across the media that Postmasters were seen to be letting their customers down is one thing, although our local post office were unaffected by the scandal, thankfully, Barbara the postmistress does a great job, but then to isolate one individual is an opportunity for headline writers to pillory them. Obviously, nowadays, I immediately question whether the person was guilty in fact, knowing what I do about false accusations, but even before then I was struck by the number of questions being raised about the conviction of the Birmingham Six in the 1970s and 80s. The narrative was that they were Irish and they had gelignite on their hands. Job done. The latter reason is now known to be untrue, the result of a faulty forensic test, but the main supposition that being any particular nationality makes you guilty is laughable, to put it mildly.

So, who puts the narrative about?  Journalists and lawyers. Not all, obviously, but that is the point in all the investigations I have carried out, with the possible exception of the CPS. It’s never “everyone”.  When I say don’t trust lawyers, I mean don’t accept their bona fides, their good faith at first, but check the type of person they are before you take their advice. As we have seen from Findley and Scott (2006), many lawyers will just tell you to plead guilty as one did to Seema, and Lucy Connolly was also so advised. This brings us back to my general thesis regarding large organisations whether they be private corporations or government institutions and as was noted by Sir Jake Berry on GB News last night (10/11/2025): as is well known amongst management consultants, large organisations start forgetting who they are supposed to be serving, the customer and the citizen, and become more interested in their own interests. That’s where the trouble starts, whether at the BBC or the legal profession.

Controlling the Narrative

The point is: who controls the narrative? In earlier times it was simpler but the Church and King have lost the preponderance they once had. As they were slowly replaced by pamphlets and “scandal sheets” the courts tried to shut them down, but regardless newspapers, also known as broadsheets, flourished, despite the stamp tax; then came radio in the 1920s, then television in the late 1930s, then the red tops crept into the vacuum and most recently social media: the internet and mobile phones have finally stolen the show. The narrative slippped from the government’s control.

The Lucy Letby case was poorly reported at the time, calling her the “angel of death”, Seema was called a thief, and even as I write there are people in prison who protest their innocence, many known to False Allegations Watch (FAW), who are treated with scepticism by the press when it’s the press that should be questioning the convictions, not upholding the status quo.

Thereby hangs the tale. Ordinary people like me cannot afford to take on huge institutions. If you earn more than £11,500, you can’t claim legal aid. That is preposterous. However, given the quality of the average solicitor that may be no disadvantage. Self-representation in court, as long as you know the general principles of English law, as I do thanks to studying Frank at management school, is a viable proposition, but the chances of the case going against you means you could have to pay the opponent’s costs.

Thus, famously, many people like Seema can’t sue newspapers that spread lies about them. It’s interesting that all the Woking News and Mail reports now is the terrible injury done to Seema. Usually, the papers blast accusations on the front page only to retract on page 17 in the bottom left-hand corner.

However, there are good news stories too. The media gets it right eventually, just like the law, which is the redeeming factor in English culture. Seema’s husband ran a taxi service, and he heard on the local BBC Radio Surry radio station that if anyone had a story, they should phone in and that’s what Davinder did which brought their case to the attention of Nick Wallis in 2011. Consequently, and fortunately. Nick took the case on and made various radio programmes bringing the case to light and indeed the whole scandal.

Similarly, the absurd Lucy Letby case has been helped by the very media that called her an “angel of death”.

Concluding Comments

The aim of this essay is to describe to Davinder what role the media plays in miscarriages of justice. Like the Parson’s egg, the media is good in parts but equally bad in parts. That bad part is entirely the responsibility of judges who are NOT to be universally accepted as judges of the facts. The role of the justice system is to protect the innocent and falsely accused, not to find everyone guilty regardless of the facts and give them the heaviest sentence come what may, like Judge Jeffries. What is curious at the moment is that judges are acting like prosecutors rather than defenders of the innocent and it seems to me that is the result of having joined the European Union where the dominant legal culture is magisterial, where the judges both investigate the allegations and rule on them, usually with no jury in sight. Most (?) of the graduate class in England are Liberal (in the corporate authoritarian sense not the liberal democracy sense) and seem to have been influenced by that European culture.

Judges have the right to interrupt a trial and kick it out of court as they did in two of my cases. The CPS has a 50% failure rate in prosecutions, which would bankrupt any commercial company, yet they continue to operate. The narrative is that English law is the best in the world and can be trusted, I would say it is the best in the world but not because of the legal profession but, rather, because of the law itself. Seema Misra’s judge admitted there was no evidence against her yet had her convicted because he didn’t order the jury to acquit which, again, he has the power to do. Why not?

First of all, judges are human and subject to confirmation bias like everyone else although I would have thought by now they had been properly trained in such things but the status quo, uninformed about Judge Jeffries, carries on with the narrative that judges are good and accused people MUST be bad: if they weren’t guilty why would the CPS have brought the case? Why indeed, but I have discussed that elsewhere.

The current obsession with race and racism which has only arisen in recent years: my son is central American and so-called “coloured” but it has never been an issue other than stupid comments at junior school where some kids called him the “P” word; but a few stupid idiots, who exist in every culture, don’t make a narrative: the media do.

The point about English law, as opposed to others, is that, although we may get it wrong in the first place, eventually the truth emerges, and the truth prevails. That is why we don’t like the death penalty. Not because the law is wrong but lawyers, including judges are incompetent on more occasions than most people like to think, as I demonstrated with the CPS and eventually became an issue in parliamentary committee. It takes a while, but we get there in the end, as we did with Seema and all the other Postmasters and mistresses.

The point is the media appear lazy and very biased even as we see in the current BBC scandal regarding President Trump. If you want a corporate job with a pension at the end you have to fit in. You have to accept the ruling narrative or, as we used to say, your face has to fit. When Seema was described as a “pregnant thief”, the first part was true: the second was a lie. It doesn’t matter that the court ruled she was guilty, it was a lie and if the local media had done their job, which Nick Wallis, to his credit, eventually did, they would never have reported such an egregious statement.  Now the offending newspaper is singing her praises and calling her a hero, which she is to be welcomed, but in a recent X tweet, Seema points out that the pain remains.

But the narrative says English law is the best in the world. It is. It’s the lawyers – and that includes the judges - that now need to be in the dock. The narrative is that lawyers are more intelligent than the general public. I can assure you that simply isn’t true. They are no more intelligent than anyone else and that certainly applies to the local lawyers where I live who don’t appear very intelligent at all. They simply go along with whatever the “hegemonic” narrative is and when it all goes wrong it was someone else’s fault, as the consultants tried to do with Lucy Letby. Innocent people are banged up while they all nip off to the golf course, or more recently the tennis club, it would appear.

As a matter of personal fact, I used to listen to a lot of Radio 4 but have now completely stopped due to the obviously prejudiced attitudes expressed by the presenters. They aren’t biased, that would have to be unconscious, they express their preferences openly which is prejudice. The attitudes towards Brexit, for example, were clearly prejudiced. They thought it would be a disaster before knowing what the results were. If they weren’t presenters at the BBC that would be fine, but the BBC is specifically and openly supposed to be impartial. They weren’t. Personally, I think parliamentary sovereignty is priceless. Apparently, some people think going to France on holiday hassle-free is worth giving up 1000 years of sovereignty. If they’re BBC staff with holiday homes in Provence that might explain it.

Does that mindset explain judges ignoring not just the evidence, but the LACK of evidence and sending someone, like Seema, to prison – when pregnant? It seems hard to believe but that is an issue I have struggled with for several if not many years. How can somebody who is an apparently rational, Enlightenment-educated person make such absurd decisions? While it’s true that groupthink is responsible for the behaviour or thinking of the BBC staff it takes a special type of thinking that explains Seema’s conviction and that is now provided by Adam Zeman (Zeman 2024) identifying a new syndrome he has called hyperphantasia and I have discussed previously and will return to in my next article.

No-one deserves to be falsely convicted, but, plainly, very many people are, not least Seema. Although confirmation bias and groupthink explain bad decision-making in the courts in many cases, it doesn’t in the Post Office Scandal, the Lucy Letby case and others. The accusers KNEW they were “making it up” (as they were in my cases), which would make the cases abortions of justice ala Michael Naughton typology Naughton, 2013). Somehow their imaginings over-rode reality. That is because they had imagined things had happened to cover their selfish interests. We need to bring an end to that.

By Robert Luther Smith

Please let us know if you think that there is a mistake in this article, explaining what you think is wrong and why. We will correct any errors as soon as possible.

References

Findley, K.A. and Scott, M.S. (2006) “The multiple dimensions of confirmation bias in criminal investigations”; University of Wisconsin Law School.

Frank, W.F;. (1957) The General Principles of English Law; Harrap and Co.

Naughton, M. (2013) The innocent and the criminal justice system. Palgrave Macmillan.

Sellar, W, C. and Yeatman R.J. (1930) 1066 and all that; Methuen and Co.

Zeman, A. (2024) Aphantasia and hyperphantasia: explaining imagery vividness in extremes; Trends in Cognitive Sciences, May 2024, Vol 28, No 5. Cell Press.