Leveson tells MPs: My recommendations were not bonkers
Please note this is Hacked Off's old website, and it will soon be archived.
By David Hass
The long-awaited appearance of Inquiry Chairman Sir Brian Leveson at the Culture Select Committee was limited in scope but the judge’s messages were as clear and resolute as they were the day he published his report nearly a year ago.
Despite the best efforts of some members of the committee to muddy the waters, lead him down meandering blind alleys or subject him to (embarrassingly amateurish) cross-questioning, Sir Brian declined to comment directly on the political process which followed publication of the Inquiry report, or other cases on the fringes of his investigation.
To do so, he said, would be wrong for a number of reasons: First, as a matter of principle, it would be wrong for a member of the independent judiciary to get drawn into political controversy. He revealed that the Lord Chief Justice had written to the Committee chair, John Whittingdale MP, when he had first been invited to give evidence, saying, “I am extremely concerned that a judge should not be asked to comment on matters in the political sphere.”
Second, Sir Brian had not taken evidence on or given detailed consideration to the cross-party charter or other events which followed the inquiry. “It is up to you (the parliamentarians) to decide what to do with the report”, he said repeatedly, echoing his comments in November that his work was done, and the ball was now in the politicians’ court. It would be unfair on interested parties if he were to opine on matters in which he had seen no evidence, he argued.
Nonetheless, he repeated his call for the press to come up with a new regulatory system that was “independent and effective” and expressed dismay at the way in which his recommendations had been distorted by sections of the media. “I certainly am very frustrated at representations of my report which are not accurate,” Sir Brian told the committee, pointing out that he “did not recommend any form of statutory regulation of the press… The regime that I proposed does not in any way impact the freedom of the press to publish anything it wants.”
Another theme he returned to during the two-and-a-half hour session was the importance of the package working for victims and the public. “It’s got to work for those who feel, legitimately in my judgment, that they have been abused by the press”, he said. He told the committee that ever since the initial hearings began, he had been telling editors, “This is your problem not mine. It’s got to work for you, but it’s got to work for the public as well.”
Whilst noting that no one who gave evidence to the inquiry suggested the idea of reforms being implemented by Royal Charter, he did venture to say that he stood by his recommendations “if those recommendations are implemented by Royal Charter,” implying at one point that he was “gratified” by the extent to which parliament’s charter gave legitimacy to his package.
Facing questions over the fears whipped up in the local and regional press that an arbitration system would pose unbearable burdens, Sir Brian pointed out that on the contrary, arbitration could work for the press, reducing their costs and encouraging vigorous investigative journalism. There was no evidence for the claim that the new system would result in an avalanche of vexatious claims. It was even recommended by one national newspaper editor during his inquiry for those reasons.
One wry remark caught the attention of those who have been following the story for the past twelve months. If MPs wanted to find out his views, they had only to read his report, which was “not bonkers”. This was a reference to the promise given by David Cameron to victims, in advance of publication, to implement Leveson’s reforms unless they were, to quote the PM, ‘bonkers’.
Towards the end of the session, Sir Brian was asked for his view on the Daily Mail’s 12-page hatchet job on Leveson assessor, former FT Chairman David Bell, in the run up to publication of the report. In contrast to the equivocal response of FT editor, Lionel Barber, in his evidence to the committee before Summer recess, Leveson gave Bell his unreserved support, declaring that he had nothing but praise for a man who had carried out his work for the Inquiry with skill and dedication.
The attempts of some MPs to discredit the whole of the Leveson Inquiry, by hook or by crook, were unsuccessful. What little Sir Brian Leveson felt able to say, he expressed with certainty and precision, leaving no one watching in any doubt that he stood by his report and hoped for its speedy adoption.
David Hass is Director of Communications for Hacked Off
3 Comments
Join the discussion and tell us your opinion.
With reference to local and regional newspapers objections to the cost of arbitration.
Sir John Whittingdale said that he had asked the Newspaper Society in an earlier meeting to provide evidence that arbitration costs would be higher than costs incurred previously. They have failed to respond.
This shows that either the Newspaper Society is negligent in representing their members or that they have no real justification for their allegations.
Philip Davies MP (Con, Shipley) should be thoroughly embarrassed and ashamed of his fatuous, poorly-researched and downright impertinent questioning of Lord Leveson which added precisely nothing to the debate. Did anyone else think Davies was using a script supplied by Murdoch or Dacre?
Sir Brian did open up a bit about the arbitration system.
Broadly, regional editors continue to express concern about the key Leveson recommendation that a press self-regulator must offer an “arbitration service”.
The purpose of this recommendation is to provide “access to justice” for complainants whilst reducing the burden of legal costs for publishers.
This proposal has until now proved attractive to national newspaper publishers but not to their regional and local counterparts.
Concerns still threaten to derail the process of sealing the All-Party Royal charter, or at least of providing a pretext for its derailment.
The most significant is the suggestion is that under this system editors would face greater pressure from lobby groups to publish their press releases under the threat of expensive arbitration claims. Local papers have a habit of just printing them rather than using releases as a basis for a balanced story.
For example, Ashley Highfield (Johnston Press) in evidence given to the House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee said that small local papers could be forced out of business if the new system resulted in vexatious complaints.
He went on to argue that local newspapers would often decide, “not to go anywhere near certain stories that have lobbying bodies that would jump on them with no fear of having to pay for any arbitration.”
This is a misunderstanding based on a failure to distinguish between the complaints and the arbitration processes. The proposed arbitration service only covers civil claims – for example relating to libel or invasion of privacy. Such claims cannot be made by lobby groups on behalf of anyone or on behalf of any cause. If this was tried, then it would be a vexatious claim and the lobby group could be the subject of an adverse costs order by the arbitrator. The Leveson Report is explicit about this.