Paul Andrew Greaves, 54 has been charged with stealing £113,000 from a police evidence locker. Warwickshire police had initially refused to name him.

According to the Daily Telegraph, a Warwickshire police spokesman said:  

“As a result of concerns raised following the publication of a press release regarding a man charged with theft, we accept that our decision not to name him was wrong and inconsistent with the current national guidance.”

“We will now be adopting the national Association of Chief Police Officers guidance in respect to naming individuals on charge.

“We apologise that our previous approach has not been consistent with this.”

In an announcement released on Wednesday the Warwickshire Police said that “a 54 year old man from the Stratford area has been charged with the theft of £113,000 from the former Warwickshire Police headquarters at Leek Wootton. The man, a retired police officer, will appear before magistrates in Leamington on May 22.”

But the announcement also said included this note to editors: “Due to a change in policy we no longer release the name of an individual on charge.”

A senior officer apparently blamed this move on a recommendation made in the Leveson report into press standards.

Neil Brunton, Deputy Chief Constable (temporary) with Warwickshire Police, later tweeted, “The policy was recently changed to align with national policy post Leverson [sic] and not because of today’s outcome.”

Lord Justice Leveson did recommend anonymity for arrested people, but stopped short of suggesting that people charged with a crime should not be identified.

The Association of Chief Police Officers is set to recommend that officers “neither confirm nor deny” the identity of people who have been arrested. But ACPO told Index that the new guidelines have not yet been signed off.

Index on Censorship CEO Kirsty Hughes commented:

“Keeping secret the names of people who have been charged with crimes goes against the principle of open justice that we have in this country. Although there may be instances when it is appropriate not to release a name, this should not be a general policy. That the police have decided not to name a former police officer is extremely worrying.”

The post Police apologise for withholding name of charged officer appeared first on Index on Censorship.

Demotix

Index on Censorship views press freedom as one core part of the fundamental right to freedom of expression.

Index engaged constructively with the Leveson Inquiry, submitting written and oral evidence.

Index has called consistently for a tougher, new independent press regulator that can tackle standards as well as complaints. Such a regulator must be voluntary.

Political Involvement in Regulation Crosses a Red Line for Press Freedom
Following the publication of the Leveson Report, the Royal Charter, accompanied by various statutes, was agreed through a process of cross-party negotiation (often behind closed doors). Index is highly concerned at the politicisation of the process of establishing a new press regulator. Index is opposed to politicians determining the characteristics of a press regulator, and to any form of press statute, or statutory underpinning of a press regulator.

One of the vital roles of a free press in a democracy is to hold politicians, government and powerful individuals and organisations to account. As the Leveson Inquiry itself showed, politicians have a strong self-interest in securing favourable press coverage as one part of a route to securing public support and so political power. A free press must be just that — free from political interference, including from politicians voting on the establishment of, and characteristics of, a press regulator. The press is subject to the same laws as other individuals and organisations, and should not have to work under specific press laws in a democracy.

The Royal Charter, and its statutory underpinning, represents a dangerous moment for press freedom and freedom of expression in the UK. The damage will spread wider than just the UK – the example parliament is setting has already been noted by a range of regimes around the world, and many journalists have expressed concern at the impact it will have on the political controls they may come to face in their own countries.

The Royal Charter itself is not a statute but it is drafted and approved by the Privy Council, which includes ministers and politicians. This in itself represents an unacceptable political involvement in the establishment of a supposedly independent press regulator.

Statutory Underpinning
The provisions of the Royal Charter are underpinned by new clauses introduced into various Bills going through parliament. This statutory underpinning means that MPs — and Lords — are in control of the establishment and characteristics of a press regulator, including the incentives and disincentives for joining the regulator. Politicians in a democracy should not vote on and make specific laws for the press – it undermines the principle of press freedom and threatens the role of the press in holding those politicians to account.

Changing the Royal Charter
One of the new statutes, an amendment to the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill, determines that in future any Royal Charter can only be changed with a two-thirds vote in both houses of parliament. Through this statute, politicians may vote now and in future on the characteristics of press regulation. As the cross-party consensus on the Royal Charter shows getting to such a two-thirds majority may not be difficult. And a simple majority vote could, anyway, cancel this statute.

Exemplary damages
A further statutory clause, in the Crime and Courts Bill sets out that an organisation which does not join the regulator but falls under its remit will potentially become subject to exemplary damages should they end up in court. In addition, even if they win, they could also be forced to pay the costs of their opponents.

Index is opposed to the imposition of exemplary damages which is likely to have a strongly chilling effect on freedom of expression. It is also quite possible that this measure would be rejected in the European Court of Human Rights.

Supporters of the royal charter say that exemplary damages would only apply to “reckless” action by journalists, but it is likely that a court would find that a breach of Article 8 rights to privacy and reputation is by definition “reckless”.

Arbitration
Index on Censorship supports a voluntary mediation system that would allow swift and inexpensive resolution of disputes based on mutual consent between complainant and defendant. The arbitration arm of the regulator established in the Royal Charter does not fulfil this role. It is not universally accessible and parties may be punished through costs and damages if they refuse to take part. This could contravene the right to legal access under article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Directing corrections
A tougher new independent regulator could reasonably require corrections to be made. The Royal Charter goes beyond this and proposes the regulator will be able to “direct” the wording and placement of apologies and corrections. Index opposes this effective transfer of editorial control. It represents a level of external interference with editorial procedures that would undermine editorial independence and undermine press freedom.

Scope
The Royal Charter is designed, in its own words, to regulate “relevant” publishers of “news-related material”. It sets out a very broad definition of news publishers and of what news is (including in the definition celebrity gossip). Many organisations who publish “news” specific to their fields may be caught in the regulator’s wide net.

Despite some subsequent attempts by politicians to establish some exclusions, such as for trade publications and charities for instance, the attempt to distinguish press from other organisations remains deeply problematic.

The Royal Charter aims to apply to news on the internet in a sweeping manner (something Leveson paid little attention to and that received very little comment in his report). As concern has spread over the potential inclusion of even small scale blogs, the government has started to look at ways to widen exempted categories.

Index is highly concerned at the rapid, sweeping and ill-considered move to regulate a major part of the internet — including in that news outlets located in other countries but focused onto the UK market (however defined).

As concern has spread over the potential inclusion of even “small scale” blogs, the Department of Culture, Media and Sport has started to look at ways to widen exempted categories.

Even defining “small-scale” is problematic in an age when individual blog posts can go “viral” and gain thousands of readers in a short period. Meanwhile, the role and practices of traditional publishers and blogs are converging rapidly, making it entirely likely that the proposed system will be mired in confusion from the very beginning.

Attempting to limit the impact of an ill-thought out, misconceived Charter and statutes on many internet users risks creating confusion and a chilling effect on freedom of expression, and could still affect many unintended targets — as well as setting a very bad example internationally at a time when the UK government repeatedly states it is promoting digital freedom internationally.

The post Index on Censorship: Leveson, the Royal Charter and press regulation appeared first on Index on Censorship.

In our increasingly digital times, freedom of expression may look like one of the positive beneficiaries of our ever more interconnected world. Countries like China or Iran build firewalls and employ small armies of censors and snoopers in determined attempts to keep their bit of the internet controlled and uncritical of their ruling elites. But with social media, blogs, citizen journalism, and ever greater amounts of news on a diverse and expanding range of sites, information is shared across borders and goes around censors with greater ease than ever before.

Yet online and off, free speech still needs defending from those in power who would like to control information, limit criticism or snoop widely across people and populations. And it would be a mistake to think the free speech attackers are only the obvious bad guys like China, Iran or North Korea.

While Putin’s Russia jails members of Pussy Riot, passes new laws to block websites and journalists continue to face risks of violent attack, it is Turkey, in 2013, that has more journalists in jail than even Iran or China. In 2004, the European Union assessed Turkey as democratic enough to be a candidate for EU membership. Today, Turkey’s government puts pressure on media companies and editors to rein in critical journalists and self-censorship is rife.

Meanwhile, in the UK, a fully paid-up member of the democracy club, the government and opposition argue over whether Parliament should regulate the print media (“statutory underpinning”, to use the jargon introduced by the Leveson Report into the phone-hacking scandal). On 18 March, the UK’s three main political parties agreed on a new press regulation system whereby an independent regulator would be set up by royal charter. And in this debate over media standards and regulation, the most basic principle, that politicians should not in any way control the press (given their interests in positive, uncritical press coverage), has been too easily abandoned by many. Yet the press faces big questions: what has happened to its standards, how can individuals fairly complain? Similar debates are under way in India, with corruption and the phenomenon of ‘“paid news” among concerns there. Falling standards provide easy targets for those who would control press freedom for other reasons.

Plenty of governments of all shades are showing themselves only too ready to compromise on civil liberties in the face of the large amounts of easily accessible data our digital world produces. Shining a light on requests for information — as Google and Twitter do in their respective transparency reports —  is one vital part of the campaigns and democraticdebate needed if the internet is not to become a partially censored, and highly monitored, world.

Google’s recent update of its figures for requests for user data by law enforcement agencies shows the US way ahead of other countries — accounting for over a third of requests with 8,438 demands, with India coming in at 2,431 and the UK, Germany and France not so far behind India.

Both India and the UK have also used too widely drawn laws that criminalise “grossly offensive” comments, leading to the arrest and prosecution of individuals for innocuous social media comments. Public outcry and ensuing debate in both countries is one sign that people will stand up for free speech. But such laws must change.

A new digital revolution is coming, as millions more people move online via their mobiles. As smart phone prices fall, and take-up expands, the opportunities for free expression and accessto information across borders are set to grow. But unless we are all vigilant, whether we face democratic or authoritarian regimes, in demanding our right to that free expression, our digital world risks being a partially censored, monitored and fragmented one. This is the global free speech challenge of our times.

This article appears in Fallout: free speech and the economic crisis. Click here for subscription options and more.

The post Global view appeared first on Index on Censorship.

Politicians voting on press regulation:
If press freedom,and freedom of expression, are to be respected as fundamental rights, politicians should not vote on specific laws and rules aimed at the press. The press cannot be under politicians’ thumbs if they are to hold power to account, and the press must obey the law like anyone else. But press laws or MPs voting on how the press is regulated are the tools of authoritarian regimes.

Political Control?
Both sides have moved towards a degree of political involvement in press regulation that is undesirable –– even if Clegg and Miliband have gone further.

Both Cameron’s and Clegg-Miliband’s proposals now involve MPs voting  on the control and characteristics of a press regulator. This is highly undesirable.

Secondly, Cameron’s Royal Charter proposal has a requirement of a two-thirds majority in both Houses before the Charter can be changed –– it’s a form of statutory underpinning and is undesirable.

Thirdly, the Clegg/Miliband proposal goes beyond this, wanting a form of statute (introduced into another bill — probably Crime and Courts bill) to underpin in law a Royal Charter (preferably their version). This is breach of the basic principle of politicians not  passing laws on the press.

Fourthly, both sides now favour a Royal Charter — but this fudge involves politicians in the Privy Council determining how the press is regulated.  It’s not independence, it’s political.

Exemplary Damages
There appears to be somewhat more agreement between the two sides that some form of penalty for staying outside the regulator. But exemplary damages could well be struck down the European Court of Human Rights as essentially unfair. Agreement between the sides is no guarantee that basic principles are being respected — they are not.

Both sides versions of the Royal Charter also say that a publisher is any website carrying news-related material, with news being defined to include gossip on celebrities. In the age of Twitter and Tumblr will we all risk exemplary damages when we comment on the internet?

Press Veto on the Regulator
Cameron’s version of how the so-called appointments panel decides who is on the board of the press regulator says it must be a unanimous decision. This allows any press member of the appointments panel, even if in a minority, to have an effective veto. This makes a mockery of the idea of an independent board. Clegg-Miliband’s proposal simply says the appointments panel should take a view on who is on the board (but doesn’t discuss what happens if the panel is split three: two –– is that good enough?). There are serious issues here but with Monday’s vote looming there is no time for a serious wider debate.

Directing or Requiring Corrections and Apologies
The two sides also have differences over the degree of power the press regulator should have to “require” corrections and apologies or to “direct” them. There are important issues here. Apologies hidden at the bottom of a page may be unreasonable. A regulator stepping into the shoes of an editor and determining what goes on the page where is a major intrusion. Yet again there is now no time to have a serious political debate — not just restricted to politicians — about the way forward.

There are other differences but these are some of the main ones. Yet instead of an open public debate, many of these issues have been the subject of bargaining behind closed doors — bargaining which has apparently involved all three parties, some of the press, and Hacked Off. Now the proposals are in the open but amidst a confusion on even exactly what the MPs will vote on this Monday.

Hacked Off, speaking for some of the victims of phone hacking, continues its high pressure lobby insisting that the test of any agreement is whether the victims support it. But when, in democratic life, was it ever agreed that laws and regulations should be written by victims? The many victims of the Mid-Staffs NHS appalling dereliction of duties and standards deserve answers and there is a clear need for change – but noone suggests those victims and their families should have the sole say on NHS reform. Yet this is the situation we are in on press regulation.

Politicians on all sides should step back, look at the shambles they have created, remind themselves of the basic principles of freedom of expression, press freedom and democracy, and call off this chaotic vote on Monday, a vote that could tarnish British democracy and undermine our long history of press freedom.

The post Leveson debate must be brought back from brink appeared first on Index on Censorship.

Index urges that there is a serious, considered debate about Lord Justice Leveson’s recommendations. The free speech organisation opposes the statutory underpinning of press regulation proposed by Lord Justice Leveson.

Kirsty Hughes, Chief Executive of Index on Censorship said:

 We consider that the statutory-voluntary approach to independent press regulation would undermine press freedom in the UK. However, we support the proposal for cheap, effective arbitration, which would help victims get swift redress to their complaints.

Index welcomed the response of the Prime Minister to the Inquiry’s findings. In a statement to parliament, David Cameron said that he had “serious concerns” about passing legislation in relation to the press, which he rightly said would be an “enormous” step.

Kirsty Hughes said: “We share David Cameron’s concerns that statutory underpinning would undermine free speech, and could be the start of a slippery slope of government interference in the media.”

Index’s response to Lord Justice Leveson’s main recommendations are:

Statutory underpinning of an ‘independent’ regulatory body: Statutory underpinning of an ‘independent’ and ‘voluntary’ regulator is a contradiction in terms. Any law which sets out the criteria that the press must meet, by definition introduces some government or political control of the media. Politicians of all hues have an interest in getting the most positive media coverage they can. Keeping print media independent of government so journalists can report on political debate and decision-making, robustly and without fear, is fundamental. Even “light” statutory regulation could easily be revisited, toughened and potentially abused once the principle of no government control of the press is breached.

Arbitration service:  Index welcomes Lord Justice Leveson’s proposal for cheap, effective arbitration.

The press and the police: Index is concerned that proposals to restrict contact between senior police officers and the press could deter legitimate journalism and whistleblowing.

Voluntary membership of regulator: Index suggests that the statutory-voluntary approach proposed by Lord Leveson contains a catch-22 and is set up to fail. While the paragraphs describing the regulator say membership is voluntary, paragraph 23 of the executive summary states that the ‘recognition body’ (suggested to be Ofcom) should only recognise and certify the regulator as ‘sufficiently effective’ if it covers ‘all signifcant news publishers’. This means the proposed system can only work – and be recognised in the way the statute would demand – if no-one exercises their right not to join. If they do exercise this right, then the regulator will fail to meet the required standards.

For further comment on Leveson’s proposals, please contact Pam Cowburn on 07749785932 or pam@indexoncensorship.org

Background

Index’s chief executive on why Leveson goes too far

&

Index Policy Note: Freedom of the Press, Governance and Press Standards: Key Challenges for the Leveson Inquiry

The post Index on Censorship’s response to the Leveson report appeared first on Index on Censorship.

Sir Hugh was pipped at the post in 2011 as a candidate to be the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, by Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe. Some suggest Sir Hugh’s blunt style may have cost him political support — though he is often labelled the police’s favourite police officer.

Sporting a pink striped tie against a blue striped shirt, Sir Hugh is welcoming, friendly and loquacious in his rather austere office just up the road from Scotland Yard in central London. And as we talk, he is indeed blunt. Some of his comments have a hard edge and he gives the impression of a man who takes no hostages but has a sharp political sense.

Sir Hugh describes ACPO as “the glue that holds national policing together”. From briefing newly elected police commissioners to coordinating national police responses to terrorist threats, it is a wide and demanding brief, not least as chief constables all volunteer, on top of their day job, to lead different areas for ACPO where national coordination is needed. As Sir Hugh told the Leveson Inquiry: “In the absence of a federal model of policing [ACPO] provides a voluntary structure to secure national agreements.”

Human rights and free speech

In the UK, the police are, in theory, part of a system that defends our individual and collective human rights — including the right to free speech, and the freedom of assembly and association. Yet the police’s commitments to human rights in practice is, inevitably questioned as real life events unfold. Meanwhile, parts of the British media and frequently suggest our human rights laws and commitments are undermining common sense policing and democratic decision-making, or risking our security.

Sir Hugh is clear and liberal-sounding on the overarching principle. Free expression and human rights are, he insists, “a function of good policing…human rights are not an impediment to effective policing.”

But there’s a hard underpinning to this view: “Those who want cheap tilts at the Human Rights Act paint it as an impediment; it’s the opposite. We use lethal force — compliant with article two — so it’s flawed to say it’s an impediment.” Article two sets out the right to life, but also allows police to use no more force than “absolutely necessary” to arrest someone or in tackling a riot. This can cover cases where deaths occur. Sir Hugh’s is not a soft defence of the Human Rights Act.

Nor does he see security and police openness in providing information necessarily as trade-offs: “The biggest national threats without question are cybercrime and terrorism” he says. But he thinks transparency, as far as possible, is part of tackling these threats “so you only don’t talk [about them] if you absolutely can’t.”

The harder challenge in policing free expression is where there may be calls to constrain free speech or the right to protest. There are a number of laws that give police the option or even the requirement to step in — some, such as section 5 of the Public Order Act are broadly phrased and mean the police have a lot of leeway (although ‘insulting’ language is now to be taken out of the Act).  Sir Hugh admits frankly that where and whether to constrain rights can be a “nightmare – the first default is to call the police”. He  underlines the importance of discretion in policing and argues “cops tolerate a lot”. He adds: “if we enforced everything, there would be no cops on the streets.”

Having faced the challenges in Northern Ireland of how to manage the right to protest in the face of major community tensions, Sir Hugh is clear that these rights are not absolute: “These are conditional rights not unconditional rights — you can’t just ride roughshod over others….you have to manage that very difficult territory.” When pushed he admits that the tactic of kettling “is pretty hard edged” but adds: “We have used containment in football stadium for decades, and no one complained.”

Public sensitivity to offence is, Sir Hugh thinks, on the rise not least in the context of some recent high profile prosecutions of ‘offensive’ speech on social media: “The expectation of citizens that the police will act if they are insulted has increased, especially if it’s personal and hurtful.” He thinks the interim guidelines issued last December by the Director of Public Prosecutions Keir Starmer, which aim to rein in the number of such prosecutions, will be “helpful” and does not want police time taken up policing “every insulting comment.”

But laws, he insists, are the realm of government: “We don‘t lobby” he says. “We act on laws as the government creates them.”

He says frontline officers “have never been so well trained” and do understand their responsibilities in defending and protecting human rights, and using discretion and judgement. But he thinks “with 20 per cent cuts, training tends to go” – and describes the cuts facing the police as their “biggest challenge”.

Costs can be a key issue for free expression; if there’s a major protest against a play or an exhibition, the policing that may be needed isn’t necessarily provided free. But should we have to pay to have our human rights defended? “As a chief constable” says Sir Hugh “I’d be prepared to have a conversation about it. But it’s not necessarily wrong for someone dealing with a commercial event to make a contribution if others are put at risk because we shift resources.” We have to balance, he says, the human rights principles of the right to be protected with ever more limited resources.

Police and the Press

Sir Hugh is clearly pleased with the findings of Lord Justice Leveson’s inquiry that there were some wrong judgements and decisions by police but no pervasive corruption or lack of integrity. He bristles slightly at the suggestion Leveson let the police off lightly, saying Leveson is a judge who “follows evidence and there is none to leap from individual actions to root and branch failure to police media relations.”

He also argues that most police-media relations have been for the most part unproblematic: “A lot of cops gave evidence to Leveson and the vast majority described an utterly proper professional relationship with the press…and meeting to discuss over tea or a pint of beer is OK, proper and proportionate.” He is not concerned with Leveson’s suggestion that there shouldn’t be off the record briefings: “I think it [‘off the record’] became misunderstood as secret, clandestine, and Leveson was trying to take the heat out of it.” But he insists that there will be briefings that are not for the public or for background context.

He has some sharp words for the press too, emphasising the difference in public trust ratings for police compared to journalists. “If you look at the polls…you see the public feel quite powerless.” The police, he says, deal with victims, such as “people dealing with massive grief and utterly unused to the media” and if there is a public interest in intrusion that is, he thinks, for journalists to justify. But if media behaviour is “horrendous, unfair, then the public must have a right to complain.”

In the end, Sir Hugh thinks the United Kingdom is doing OK compared to other countries in the world: “If you walk outside and talk on the street corner you are very unlikely to get arrested —- isn’t that the point?” The British model, he believes, is built around tolerance, “though that’s not to say sometimes there is not a hard edge.”

Tolerance with a hard edge — perhaps a good summary of Sir Hugh’s approach to policing our rights. But where that hard edge is placed and how it is interpreted on the ground will continue to be a central question for whether free expression and other rights are adequately defended by the police.

 Kirsty Hughes is Chief Executive of Index on Censorship

The post “Human rights are not an impediment to effective policing” appeared first on Index on Censorship.

Index on Censorship – Leveson Report Policy Note – December 2012

The post Leveson: The way ahead for a free press in the UK appeared first on Index on Censorship.

This article was originally published in Press Gazette

As newspaper editors are put under pressure by David Cameron to conjure up rapidly a Leveson-like press regulator that doesn’t require legislation, there is still much confusion around what Lord Justice Leveson’s voluminous report actually means.

Does it cross the Rubicon of statutory involvement in the press? Or does it really set out the path to an independent, voluntary and self-regulatory approach?

While the power and behaviour of large media corporations have rightly been under an intense spotlight, little attention has been paid to questions of political power and the reasons why politicians around the world can so easily be tempted to pressurise or even control the press. Leveson’s report is also remarkably easygoing on the misjudgements of politicians and police in their relations with the media, allowing for good faith even where bad decisions have been taken, especially by the police.

Yet part of what Leveson — and others — exposed so effectively to the world was an extraordinary cronyism in some media-political-police networking. Coming so quickly after the expenses scandal, it is surprising that so many people — hacking victims, politicians, academics, celebrities — are ready to say the answer to the phone-hacking scandal is to let politicians vote on regulating newspapers.

Leveson’s so-called “statutory underpinning” of a press regulator would mean MPs voting on the characteristics such a regulator should have, set out in 24 paragraphs that Leveson says would form the core of the definition of an acceptable regulator. This breaches the vital principle for a free press and freedom of expression — that state, politicians, and government should not have any sway over newspapers beyond general laws that apply to all citizens and organisations.

It is hardly new to point out that politicians care about their media image and how the press report on them, and do what they can to spin good coverage. Good coverage can help to keep them in power, impacting on what voters think and how they vote. And so we need journalists and politicians to be independent of each other if we want our democracy to function as it should.

A vote by MPs to establish the characteristics of a press regulator means that body would not be independent. Nor, if it follows his principles for an “independent” board with no current editors, is it ‘self-regulation’ either. Is it at least voluntary, like the Irish model, which is set up by statute but voluntary to join? Here confusions reigns. Leveson says it is. But one characteristic he insists a press council must meet is that “all significant news publishers” join.

So if anyone exercises their voluntary right not to join, the press council fails.

Leveson suggests (as a view not a recommendation) that if it fails, Ofcom should act as a statutory backstop. Catch 22: the press council fails if anyone chooses voluntarily not to join; but if the body fails, compulsory backstop regulation steps in. Joseph Heller would be proud of him — but it’s no way to protect press freedom.

Kirsty Hughes is Chief Executive of Index on Censorship. She tweets at @Kirsty_Index

Background

Press Release: Index on Censorship’s response to the Leveson report

Index Policy Note: Freedom of the Press, Governance and Press Standards: Key Challenges for the Leveson Inquiry

Index Magazine: Leveson must protect press freedom

The post Why journalism and politics should remain independent appeared first on Index on Censorship.

Kirsty Hughes outlines Index’s issues with the press inquiry’s recommendations

Lord Justice Leveson’s report could determine the path of the press in Britain for years to come.

There will be many more days of picking over the minutiae of the 2,000 page report, but some key elements are clear — and have already split the coalition and the House of Commons.

Statutory regulation threatens press freedom

Statutory regulation, or underpinning in the jargon, of an “independent” press regulator is Leveson’s core recommendation. If it happened, this would mean a specific law would set out aspects of control of the press for the first time in over 300 years. Index is strongly opposed to any such statutory involvement in press regulation.

In his brief remarks presenting the report today, Leveson attempted to pre-empt such criticism asserting: “This is not, and cannot be characterised as, statutory regulation of the press.” But the Prime Minister David Cameron disagreed in his statement to the House of Commons saying he had “serious concerns and misgivings” and that statutory underpinning of an “independent” regulator would be an “enormous” step.

Leveson’s report sets out in great detail the characteristics and criteria that the new regulator should meet. It also suggests that a “recognition body” would assess and “certify” that the regulator met these criteria — with Ofcom suggested as the best organisation to be this recognition body. MPs would vote into law these criteria, and would vote into law the process by which an “independent” appointments panel would select the chair and board of the regulator (which would exclude any current editor).

Politicians must not control the press

This politicisation of press control would be a major breach of the principles of freedom of expression and a free press. There are fundamental reasons why politicians and media should be distinct from and independent of each other. The cronyism between media, police and politicians, exposed in part in the Leveson Inquiry, is not a reason to establish a sort of “reverse cronyism” whereby media would risk being pressurised by government and other politicians.

The media has a vital role to play — as Leveson himself indicated — in monitoring and reporting the political scene, challenging and criticising and holding to account those in power; if journalists cannot do this robustly and without fear of interference or other political consequences, press freedom is constrained. Beyond this, even “light” statutory regulation could easily be revisited, toughened and potentially abused once the principle of no government control of the press is breached.

The fact that, in Leveson’s recommendations, it is left as “voluntary” for news publishers to decide to join, does not mitigate the fact that all those who do join are part of a statutorily-established process. And there is also a Catch-22 here since the Report states that the press regulator should only be recognised as effective if “all significant news publishers” join. So if one major news outfit doesn’t join, the regulator is deemed unacceptable. In that case, all “significant” news publishers would be part of the statutorily-established system.

The system Leveson proposes is very similar to that operating in Ireland since 2009. The Irish system does not however demand that all significant news outfits join. And, on the other hand, the Irish model is somewhat more intrusive in that the Justice Minister there essentially plays the role that Leveson suggests Ofcom would play in the UK system. While Ofcom is somewhat more arms-length than a UK minister acting as the “recognition body”, this does not solve the central problem of statute, which must be created by politicians.

Leveson goes to some lengths to set out criteria for an independent appointments panel to appoint the independent chair and board of the “independent” regulator. But if MPs first vote on the detailed statute that sets up the panel and the criteria for the regulator, then this proposal threatens press freedom in the UK and Cameron must remain resolute in his opposition to this.

Other key proposals

Leveson’s proposal for a cheap, effective arbitration service is one that Index welcomes — this can benefit both complainants and publishers in ensuring complaints can be dealt with swiftly, fairly, and without great costs. Swift, fair arbitration in this way can deal with those cases where the media is, or is felt to be, impervious to complaints. A much stronger standards arm, fines, and more independent figures on the regulator’s board can all act — as Leveson and the party leaders agree — to transform the behaviour of those parts of the press whose behaviour Leveson castigates in his report.

Leveson calls for much greater transparency in media relations with politicians and the police especially at senior level. Ending cronyism and inappropriate relationships between some journalists, some politicians and some police is important. But insisting all contact between senior police officers and journalists must be transparent risks throwing the baby out with the bathwater — deterring whistle-blowers and inhibiting legitimate journalism.

Leveson insisted today that it was wrong to say that the phone-hacking scandal and other examples of damaging and inappropriate press behaviour and intrusion into individuals’ privacy were due to failure to apply the law. But the criminal law does apply to the media, as to other organisations and individuals. And a combination of effective application of existing laws with a stronger independent regulator – set up without any statute or parliamentary vote — can provide the framework for genuine press freedom to be upheld in the UK and to ensure there are higher media standards, better governance, and greater protection for individuals’ from criminal, in appropriate and unjustified media behaviour. A statutory route will undermine the free press that Leveson — and Clegg and Miliband — claim they want to keep.

Kirsty Hughes is Chief Executive of Index on Censorship. She tweets at @Kirsty_Index

Background

Press Release: Index on Censorship’s response to the Leveson report

Index Policy Note: Freedom of the Press, Governance and Press Standards: Key Challenges for the Leveson Inquiry

 

The post Index: Leveson goes too far appeared first on Index on Censorship.

Newspapers [Shutterstock]

Already, the jockeying for position has begun. Labour leader Ed Miliband has suggested that he will “accept” the Leveson recommendations — perhaps recklessly, considering he has not, to our knowledge seen them yet. Senior conservatives such as Michael Gove and William Hague have implied wariness of anything the judge might come up with, with Hague saying he would “err on the side of free expression”.

What emerged during the Leveson Inquiry is no less shocking for the retelling. Lord Justice Leveson heard harrowing accounts of phone hacking and intrusion, of newsrooms that appeared to have lost any sort of ethical bearing, and of unnervingly intimate relations between politicians and media executives. The need for change is genuine, and urgent.

So what’s actually at stake in the coming months? The question most discussed is “statutory regulation or not?” Or, in simpler terms — Should the government create a law that will decide how the press is regulated?

It’s important to state the issue simply. Over the past year, the Leveson orbit has developed its own subculture and jargon, with angels-on-pinheads arguments on issues such as the difference between self regulation and independent regulation.

If parliament is allowed  to create a specific press law then a precedent is set whereby politicians may feel they have the right to meddle with press freedom, for party political reasons or short term gain. Even a “light dab” of statute could create a level of parliamentary power over the press. Maintaining a positive image is vital for politicians, and they may find themselves tempted to pressurise papers, who in turn may feel less free to criticise our leaders — a crucial function of a free press.

Members of the press are already subject to restrictions on free expression: that is, the same restrictions everyone in the country is subject to. A law relating specifically to the press creates a kind of licensing, meaning that journalists would potentially face more restrictions on their right to speak freely than the average Briton.

So what do we do? Several newspaper proprietors and editors have come up with suggestions for independent regulation “with teeth”, in the hope of convincing the government that the industry can clean up after the disastrous and disturbing News of the World phone-hacking scandal. There are rumours that David Cameron is willing to give the press “one last chance” to put its house in order.

It’s important that the press shows willing here. The population was rightly horrified by the breaches exposed in the Inquiry, and newspapers, with trust at an all time low, must themselves make the case for high standards, good governance and common decency throughout the industry.

Whether the press is really in the last chance saloon or not, it’s vital that the government steps back from statute, and that the press makes a convincing case that it is really capable of reform.

Padraig Reidy is news editor at Index. He tweets at @mepadraigreidy

The post Leveson inquiry: Politicians must give weight to free speech appeared first on Index on Censorship.