PRESS FREEDOMS

Intro: IPSO commands confidence among all but the most blinkered of anti-Press campaigners

Following the phone-hacking scandal and Lord Justice Leveson’s Inquiry into the Press, Parliament passed legislation by trying to force the newspaper industry to sign-up to a state-backed regulator. The primary device for achieving this is Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, a pernicious and damaging measure that would see libel costs awarded against any newspaper which is not a member of a Government approved regulator. This would even apply where a newspaper has successfully defended a claim and thus proved its reporting was justified.

Most newspapers in the UK subscribe to an independent regulator, IPSO. Since the costs in legal actions are invariably higher than the damages, this device will act as a deterrent to newspapers, especially local ones, from carrying stories or conducting investigations that bear even a remote risk of being sued. The measures are a direct challenge to the freedom of the Press, but, they are still yet to be enacted, as former Culture Secretary John Whittingdale declined (or perhaps even refused) to trigger the provisions within the Act.

However, there are growing indications that the Government may be about to bow to pressure to proceed with Section 40. Crucially, ministers now need to ask what damage this would inflict. The chairman of IPSO, Sir Alan Moses, has described the possible commencement of Section 40 as a blatant attempt by “the powers that be” to confine and restrict a free Press. A former judge, Sir Alan said a Press that acts under compulsion from the state “is doomed” and MPs should be aware that the very independence that makes the British press “viable and precious” would be lost.

Sir Alan heads a regulator that has shown itself to be tough, robust and independent. IPSO commands confidence among all but the most blinkered of anti-Press campaigners. The Government should now let it get on with the job it is doing – and scrap Section 40 for good.