Tag Archives: Leveson Inquiry

Britain, Culture, Government, Politics, Society

The threats to Press freedom in the UK should be ditched

PRESS FREEDOMS

Free Press.png

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.

Standard
Britain, Government, Legal, Society

Proposed changes to libel law would inhibit the free press…

LIBEL LAW REFORM

The Ministry of Justice has announced that the Government will back Lord Justice Leveson’s proposals for ‘costs protection’ in defamation and libel cases, making it easier for individuals to sue media companies. Under the current rules, if someone brings a case for libel and loses, they have to pay the defendant’s legal costs as well as their own. If proposals by justice minister, Helen Grant, go through, a judge will be able to impose a ‘one-way’ costs order. The effect of this will mean the poorest claimants will not have to cover the defendant’s bill for legal costs if they lose their case, and those on average incomes may only have to pay a proportion of it.

Taken in isolation, the perceived notion of changing the law to ensure that victims of libel (whatever their means) can take on powerful media organisations will be a good one. For one may argue that legal protection from defamation and invasion of privacy ought not to be restricted to the wealthy and well-heeled. In practical terms, though, its effect upon the free press would be iniquitous. The floodgates would be opened as individuals – aided by no-win, no-fee lawyers – freed from the risk of having to pick up the tab for losing a weak case, would sue media organisations on the flimsiest of pretexts. By removing the restraint imposed by the danger of losing, the plan opens the door to any number of opportunistic and vexatious claims.

If the proposals are adopted, journalists and editors might be dissuaded from reporting stories that they fear could trigger a legal battle. Even if they believe that they have right on their side (and could easily win the libel suit), knowing that they would have to cover the costs of a losing litigant would, undoubtedly, make them think twice before reporting the story, however legally defendable they might be.

The Leveson inquiry was set up in response to real and serious abuses by a handful of journalists, the consequences of which are now working their way through the criminal justice system. Whilst there is no-doubt that the newspaper industry requires better, tougher and reactive self-regulation, a free press is a critical part of our democracy and civil society. It would hardly be conducive to investigative journalism, or even equitable, if media organisations have to pay out every time a false charge of defamation is raised against them.

There is no question that libel cases cost too much, and that action’ of libel, defamation and invasion of privacy cause real suffering. But one-way costs are as disproportionate as they are fraught with unintended consequences.

It is both unjustifiable and unfair to allow the criminal misdeeds of a tiny minority of corrupt journalists to crimp the activities of journalism as a whole.

A vigorous and unfettered press is as important as ever, and it must be preserved and protected. The Ministry of Justice must go back and revise its proposals on libel law reform.

Standard
Arts, Britain, Culture, Government, Media

Plans for a tough new Press watchdog following the Leveson Inquiry…

PRESS STANDARDS

Following the Leveson Inquiry into press and media standards, Britain’s newspaper and magazine publishers have revealed the details of a tough new Press watchdog.

The Independent Press Standards Organisation (Ipso) will have the power to impose fines of up to £1 million for systemic wrongdoing and require editors to publish upfront corrections ‘whether proprietors like it or not’.

The Media and Culture Secretary, Maria Miller, has said she is ‘glad’ that progress is being made following months in which talks on Press regulation have stalled.

The watchdog will have far tougher rules than the previous toothless Press regulator, the Press Complaints Commission (PCC). It is understood that Ipso will incorporate a standards and compliance arm, with strict investigative powers to call editors to account. The majority of members of the new body will be independent and the industry itself will have no veto on appointments, but proper processes for public appointments and scrutiny will be in place.

Report: The Leveson Inquiry highlighted ethical failings in the press

Report: The Leveson Inquiry highlighted ethical failings in the press

The public will be able to call a hotline number if they want to ask media organisations to leave them alone. And a whistleblowers’ hotline will also be set up for journalists if they are asked to do anything they believe is unethical.

The details were released ahead of a meeting today of the Privy Council at which a Royal Charter to govern the rules surrounding Press regulation will be discussed.

Newspaper publishers appear to hold a common consensus in that the Independent Press Standards Organisation will be a ‘complete break with the past’ and will deliver all the ‘key recommendations’ made by Lord Justice Leveson.

The Culture Secretary said:

… We have been urging the newspaper industry for several months to set up a new self-regulator, and are glad that they seem to now be making progress.

… We all want to see the principles of the Leveson report implemented and the self-regulatory body is a key component of that.

Most in government will welcome that the Press are forging ahead with the establishment of a new regulator. Ipso will go a long way to remedying the deficiencies of the PCC and in fulfilling the recommendations of Lord Justice Leveson.

Though it may take several months for the new body to be operating, the proposals offer a route map out of the deadlock eight months after Leveson reported. That deadlock is mostly attributable to the lobby group Hacked Off which has tried to stitch up a deal for political control of newspapers.

A watchdog with teeth is needed. The public have a right to expect a resolution to this matter sooner rather than later.

PROPOSALS

  • Maximum fines of £1 million for systemic wrongdoing by the Press
  • Upfront corrections when stories are wrong
  • A phone hotline for the public to complain about harassment by the Press
  • A whistleblowers’ hotline for journalists who are concerned they are being asked by bosses to do something unethical
  • A standards and compliance arm, with investigative powers to call editors to account
  • The Press have no veto over appointments to the new regulator
Standard