To me, something being a 'non-story' is about [potential] public interest (less interest, less story). I honestly can't figure out what you mean by a 'non-story' - it sounds like you're saying it's a non-story because it's legally required to be a non-story? Sorry if I'm misinterpreting.
I meant that the PM is fully aware of the law so he knows the answer, but asks anyway to get attention[1]. That is the non-story, not the court case itself.
Unfortunately, it’s also a very easy story to write up because it contains some (made-up) controversy, so the Guardian fell for it.
> non· sto· ry ˌnän-ˈstȯr-ē plural nonstories. : something that is not a story. a nonstory with no clear plot. specifically : an event or occurrence that is not newsworthy enough to be a news story.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nonstory#:~:text=...
[1] If he really wanted to change something he would have announced a parliamentary initiative, or held a “roundtable on media governance” or similar.
I'm not sure you understand the Parliamentary Privilege loophole (and I assure you both the Guardian and David Davis MP do!). It gives any sitting MP the power to effectively legalise mentioning something in the media - that's what David Davis MP was doing. His invocation of Parliamentary privilege wasn't just because he wanted to say something about it; it was effectively an executive action by him alone. He mentioned the New Yorker piece in order to allow the British media to mention it too. This article's headline and wording will have been carefully vetted by the Guardian's legal team, as it's still technically illegal to report on anything to do with the Lucy Letby case. The loophole is that court injunctions can't stop you reporting what an MP said in Parliament.
> Under English law, British media are restricted in their reporting owing to Letby’s upcoming retrial.