Lord Justice Leveson's recommendations must be implemented

The Leveson report, a magnus opus by any standards, makes painful and depressing reading for any supporter of a free press. It catalogues the appalling abuse that has been carried out by a small number of newspapers and its journalists, principally the red tops with the now defunct News of the World at the head. It also records not only the relentless pursuit of stories by journalists by any means, irrespective of breaking the law, but the devastation caused to its victims, so graphically apparent in the televised hearings of evidence to the inquiry. Such is the scale of the abuse that it was inevitable that Lord Justice Leveson would come down hard on the press and the regulators whom they appointed, the PCC.

Pathetic Complaints Commission

The press could have been restrained if the PCC had not been so limp wristed, so complacent and so feeble. For how many years have we begged the PCC to act more responsibly in enforcing what is, in principle, a perfectly workable code? It bears repeating what is said in the preamble to the PCC code: “All members of the press have a duty to maintain the highest professional standards. The code, which includes this preamble and the public interest exceptions below, sets the benchmark for those ethical standards, protecting both the rights of the individual and the public’s right to know. It is the cornerstone of the system of self regulation to which the industry has made a binding commitment.” We have referred to the PCC being “toothless” and a poodle before, and demanded that it be a bulldog, with no avail. Now the very people responsible for its disastrous reign are drafting proposals for a new regulatory body based on Leveson’s recommendations and discussing them with the PM. Heaven help us. One wonders what the victims feel about those responsible for doing nothing to stop the abuse now having anything to do with drafting proposals to protect them in the future.

Statutory underpinning

The warnings that the press were in the last chance saloon have been shouted from the rooftops for years. They have been ignored and there can be no surprise at all that Leveson has been forthright in his recommendation that there be a new independent body to replace the PCC with the power of extensive sanctions, including the levying of substantial fines and the requirement of the publication of prominent apologies and corrections.

Membership of the body would be voluntary but incentivised by schemes including having a kitemark to show member-ship, an inquisitorial arbitration service for handling libel and privacy claims which would be speedy and cheap and a power to award exemplary damages. So far so good. But Leveson then seeks what he calls “statutory underpinning” in what he admits amounts to the most controversial part of his recommendations.
“To give effect to the incentives that I have outlined it is essential that there should be legislation to underpin the independent self-regulatory system and facilitate its recognition in legal processes,” he said. Such legislation would enshrine a legal duty in the government to protect the freedom of the press. Secondly, it would reassure the public by introducing an independent check on the new regulatory body and its effectiveness, which he suggests should be done ?by Ofcom. And finally, it would validate the new body’s standards code. Leveson emphasises in his report that this is not a recommendation of statutory regulation.

Outrage

The reaction of the press to this recomm-endation and that of the sometime horse riding companion of Rebekah Brooks, the prime minister, warrants a H.E.Bateman cartoon such was the outrage it evoked. The outright rejection of the recommendation by the prime minister was singularly unwise. The mood of the public is not difficult to gauge and they support the recommendations.

The victims have had their say and they are entitled to expect that what are reasonable proposals which give proper protection to the public should be put in place. On the face of it, are they to be refused their pound of flesh?

Anybody who wants a free press would fight tooth and nail to stop statutory inter-ference and anything which might curtail that freedom. But Lord Justice Leveson specifically records that the legislation would not establish a body to regulate the press – the press had to come forward with its proposals to meet the criteria laid down. His recommendation would not give any rights to parliament or any other body to prevent newspapers from publishing any material whatsoever or require publication of apologies or corrections, hence the reference to underpinning and not statute.

Given the way that the press has shot itself in the foot so many times over the past few years and magnified the label “gutter press”, it is little wonder that most of the great British public have felt enough is enough. It is time to stop giving more time, making more excuses and for the press to face the music. The party is over and it is time to call it a day.

Lord Justice Leveson has done a great service in his balanced and compelling report. Efforts should be made to implement his proposals and not filibuster any longer in the interests of preserving a free press which is one of the most important and sacrosanct freedoms we have.

The good Lord believes his recommendations can be enforced without endangering that freedom. We should see whether he is right and respect his wise counsel.

Copyright & permissions