THE LEVESON INQUIRY AND ITS IMPLEMENTATION Note: All consultation submissions were made via an online form. Contributors did not have to answer all questions. TI-UK responded to the questions as set out below via the online platform.
Consultation questions on section 40 Question 1: Which of the following statements do you agree with? (a) Government should not commence any of section 40 now, but keep it under review and on the statute book; (b) Government should fully commence section 40 now; (c) Government should ask Parliament to repeal all of section 40 now; (d) If Government does not fully commence section 40 now, Government should partially commence section 40, and keep under review those elements that apply to publishers outside a recognised regulator; (e) If Government does not fully commence section 40 now, Government should partially commence section 40, and ask Parliament to repeal those elements that apply to publishers outside a recognised regulator. No answer given Question 2: Do you have evidence in support of your view, particularly in terms of the impacts on the press industry and claimants? If so, please provide evidence. (We are particularly interested in hearing from legal professionals - using their experience of litigation - in respect of the financial impacts on publishers outside a recognised self-regulator should government fully commence section 40, and specifically on (a) the likely change in volume of cases brought; and (b) the extent of average legal costs associated with bringing or defending individual cases). Answer: There is a need for both significant and genuine change alongside safeguards for press freedom. TI is not advocating any specific solution for how to advance press standards and secure redress for people who suffer when the media fails to live up to them. But we believe there needs to be a fair, independent and accessible means of doing so. We also know that the press, and investigative journalists, play a critical part in the fight against corruption. The current situation has reached an unsustainable impasse: some excellent newspapers are unregistered and vulnerable to the UK’s vicious libel laws; the replacement to the Press Complaints Commission looks uncomfortably like its discredited predecessor; Parliament’s settled view is being resisted; the media’s case is compromised by its ownership structures and poor track record; and the alternative body has been funded by a small number of special interests and is therefore suspected of not having an objective and independent approach. The situation is both an impasse and a mess, and the solution may not lie in any of the ideas that are on the table. Whatever does follow should meet four key tests:
a) it needs to be free from political interference b) it must allow victims of unjustifiable abuse, intrusion or allegation to seek recourse to an extent that is proportionate to the damage they have suffered c) it must not be a mechanism that is open to abuse by those seeking to silence the press for their own ends d) it must have genuine and effective powers of enforcement. In examining what is still to be done to restore public confidence in our news media, the Government should neither forget the passion for defending press freedom, nor the need for significant and genuine change revealed by part one of the Leveson Inquiry.
Question 3: To what extent will full commencement incentivise publishers to join a recognised selfregulator? Please supply evidence No answer given
Questions on Part 2 of the Leveson Inquiry Question 4: Do you believe that the terms of reference of Part 2 of the Leveson Inquiry have already been covered by Part 1 and the criminal investigations? If not which terms do you think still require further investigation? Answer: The terms of reference for parts one and two as originally announced were developed in consultation with those who have suffered from the abusive behaviour that prompted the inquiry in the first place. They were agreed with cross party support, and the then Prime Minister subsequently made a public promise that Leveson Part Two would go ahead. We consider that this work remains outstanding. The original Terms of Reference for Part 2 direct inquiry into the police, media organisations, and public servants. Representatives of those groups promoting the view that the inquiry should not proceed are inevitably conflicted either by their own exposure or by that of their peers – this factor should be noted when reviewing submissions. It is not appropriate to consult the subjects of an inquiry about its terms of reference, but it is appropriate to consult those on whose behalf the terms were first agreed. The terms of reference should not be amended without the consent of the people who originally agreed them. Question 5: Do you have evidence in support of your view? If so, please provide your evidence. Answer: By its very definition, Leveson Part One was restricted from fully inquiring into the issues that define Part Two due to the ongoing criminal investigations. However isolated it may be in the UK police, disturbing incidents of bribery and corruption have periodically surfaced. The original investigations into historic child sexual abuse cast doubt once again on police probity, and came after several years of allegations over corruption in the Stephen Lawrence case, phone hacking, the Hillsborough disaster, and other cases.
The argument presented by the Government is that three police investigations, at some expense, haven’t uncovered a great deal more that was already the backdrop for the first part of the Leveson Inquiry. This rather misunderstands the nature and purpose of those investigations. We ask the police to follow the evidence of criminal law-breaking wherever it leads, and to present to prosecutors the case for seeking convictions in the courts. There have certainly been some convictions, and others overturned on appeal. We cannot expect these investigations to have comprehensively and independently inquired into the conflicts, and failings of the police in their response to this scandal in the first place. To abandon this part of the Leveson inquiry now would be an abdication of responsibility by the Culture Secretary, and a betrayal of the victims of phone-hacking to whom it was promised. There have been cases of press abuse and police and media collusion which have occurred since the conclusion of Leveson Part One or subsequent reviews that took place. For example, the conviction of journalist Mazher Mahmood demonstrates that the issue of press ethics is still unresolved, as does the controversy surrounding the filming of the police raid on the home of entertainer, Sir Cliff Richard. The inquiry into the case of Daniel Morgan is also overdue, and the panel set up to deal with the Morgan case does not have statutory powers. If there are outstanding issues that require judicial powers, part two of the Leveson Inquiry would be able to address those. The above cases are obstacles to having confidence that the issues set out under Leveson Part Two have been resolved. It is our recommendation that the second part of the inquiry goes ahead. If anything, the scope may be too narrow: we have in recent years seen scandal after scandal around police corruption and yet there has been no systematic analysis of police corruption to determine whether this is a series of unfortunate one-off incidents or something more systemic. This is a critical question, as it will govern what kind of response is appropriate. The question the Government must answer is this: if the intention is to shelve part two of the Leveson Inquiry, what is the plan for a comprehensive, independent inquiry into police corruption? Question 6: Which of the two options set out below best represents your views?
Continue the Inquiry with either the original or amended terms of reference Terminate the Inquiry
If you think the government should take another course of action to those set out in the question above, please set out your views Answer: Transparency International UK believes that the UK Government should continue the inquiry with either the original or amended terms of reference.