Latest news with #Leveson
Yahoo
06-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Riots and rumours: Contempt of Court rules need reform
It has long been the case that newspapers and other media outlets cannot discuss the details of a crime once a charge has been laid and before the prosecution has begun. These contempt of court laws are intended to ensure a fair trial. The danger is that a guilty individual will walk free if the case collapses because of prejudicial reporting. But these rules date from a pre-internet era. Now, social media platforms instantly disseminate information, often false. After the Southport murders last summer, rumours that the killer was an asylum-seeker were allowed to spread, though they were not true. The police claimed they could say little and, arguably, fuelled the riots as a result. The Law Commission is now looking at whether new contempt rules are needed to let the police disclose more information about suspects. Forces used to be more forthcoming, until the Leveson inquiry into press reporting put a halt to informal contacts with journalists. Those briefings helped the media frame the context for crimes without jeopardising the prospect of a fair trial. Writing in The Telegraph, Jonathan Hall KC, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, has criticised the refusal to reveal details about Axel Rudakubana, the Southport killer, ahead of his trial. It led to 'dangerous fictions' that might have influenced jurors had the murderer not pleaded guilty. Mr Hall further said that the digital age means that the current 1981 Contempt of Court Act needs re-examination. This needs to be done urgently. In addition, he lamented the freezing of contacts between the police and media since Leveson, which has resulted in 'information voids … filled by speculation and mischief'. It is time this relationship was repaired in the public interest. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Telegraph
06-03-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
Riots and rumours: Contempt of Court rules need reform
It has long been the case that newspapers and other media outlets cannot discuss the details of a crime once a charge has been laid and before the prosecution has begun. These contempt of court laws are intended to ensure a fair trial. The danger is that a guilty individual will walk free if the case collapses because of prejudicial reporting. But these rules date from a pre-internet era. Now, social media platforms instantly disseminate information, often false. After the Southport murders last summer, rumours that the killer was an asylum-seeker were allowed to spread, though they were not true. The police claimed they could say little and, arguably, fuelled the riots as a result. The Law Commission is now looking at whether new contempt rules are needed to let the police disclose more information about suspects. Forces used to be more forthcoming, until the Leveson inquiry into press reporting put a halt to informal contacts with journalists. Those briefings helped the media frame the context for crimes without jeopardising the prospect of a fair trial. Writing in The Telegraph, Jonathan Hall KC, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, has criticised the refusal to reveal details about Axel Rudakubana, the Southport killer, ahead of his trial. It led to 'dangerous fictions' that might have influenced jurors had the murderer not pleaded guilty. Mr Hall further said that the digital age means that the current 1981 Contempt of Court Act needs re-examination. This needs to be done urgently. In addition, he lamented the freezing of contacts between the police and media since Leveson, which has resulted in 'information voids … filled by speculation and mischief'. It is time this relationship was repaired in the public interest.
Yahoo
27-01-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
You shouldn't have to be Prince Harry to win redress from Britain's press
Your editorial on Prince Harry's settlement with News Group Newspapers (The Guardian view on Prince Harry and phone hacking: the ethical issues endure, 22 January) says that press regulation 'was reformed post-Leveson, although not exactly as the report recommended'. This is something of an understatement. Indeed, the Leveson inquiry was presented with a blueprint for a complaints body by representatives of the newspapers, which would have allowed the press to continue to control their own regulator. This was known as the 'Hunt‑Black plan', after its proposers, Conservative lords Hunt and Black (the latter is also deputy-chair of the Telegraph Media Group). Leveson rejected the plan outright and criticised it as allowing the press to go on marking its own homework. He instead recommended a mechanism for guaranteeing regulation that was genuinely independent of both the state and the press. How did editors of the Mail, Sun and co respond? They ignored Leveson's proposals and resurrected the Hunt-Black plan, establishing it under the more appealing name of the Independent Press Standards Organisation (Ipso). This was the very scheme that Leveson had thrown out and rejected as unfit for purpose. Today, most national newspapers are still members of Ipso, the complaints body set up in defiance of Leveson's recommendations. In over 10 years of existence it has not launched a single standards investigation, nor fined any of its member publishers. Leveson's reforms survived in the form of an alternative independent regulator called Impress, and a number of respected and investigative titles have signed up. But those titles responsible for the most egregious abuses of press power remain in Ipso. If we are to tackle what the editorial refers to as 'irresponsibility in vast media organisations', then action to ensure press participation in the Leveson system would be a very good SparkesChief executive, Hacked Off • Media giants and the powerful have been able to dodge the pursuit of accountability with costly webs of litigation for too long. It is about time everyone was made aware of the alternatives. By drawing an admission of wrongdoing and abhorrent journalistic ethics from News Group Newspapers and the Sun, Prince Harry has undoubtedly done a great public service. However, the fact that a member of the British royal family also ultimately decided to settle rather than risk enduring any more extortionate court costs is only further confirmation that access to justice when wronged by press intrusion is totally imbalanced. We have seen in the past 12 months one of the UK's most high-profile actors, Hugh Grant, forced to settle a similar case for the same reasons. If neither film royalty nor members of the actual royal family can afford to access true justice via the courts, what hopes do members of the public have if they are subject to the same illegality? An urgent refocus is needed. Impress offers alternative dispute resolution (ADR) to all publications that sign up to our regulatory scheme as part of their membership. This was also recently opened up to the public and all publishers, too, offering a lifeline to those threatened by Slapps (strategic litigation against public participation) and whose responsible free speech is subject to unjustified claims. ADR has the power to reach a legally binding conclusion in the same way that going through courts does. The only difference is that ADR can get you there in a fraction of the time and at a fraction of the cost. If you want access to justice, you can get it without breaking the bank. Huge media conglomerates and the powerful would just rather you didn't know about Kirkconnell-KawanaChief executive, Impress
The Guardian
27-01-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
You shouldn't have to be Prince Harry to win redress from Britain's press
Your editorial on Prince Harry's settlement with News Group Newspapers (The Guardian view on Prince Harry and phone hacking: the ethical issues endure, 22 January) says that press regulation 'was reformed post-Leveson, although not exactly as the report recommended'. This is something of an understatement. Indeed, the Leveson inquiry was presented with a blueprint for a complaints body by representatives of the newspapers, which would have allowed the press to continue to control their own regulator. This was known as the 'Hunt‑Black plan', after its proposers, Conservative lords Hunt and Black (the latter is also deputy-chair of the Telegraph Media Group). Leveson rejected the plan outright and criticised it as allowing the press to go on marking its own homework. He instead recommended a mechanism for guaranteeing regulation that was genuinely independent of both the state and the press. How did editors of the Mail, Sun and co respond? They ignored Leveson's proposals and resurrected the Hunt-Black plan, establishing it under the more appealing name of the Independent Press Standards Organisation (Ipso). This was the very scheme that Leveson had thrown out and rejected as unfit for purpose. Today, most national newspapers are still members of Ipso, the complaints body set up in defiance of Leveson's recommendations. In over 10 years of existence it has not launched a single standards investigation, nor fined any of its member publishers. Leveson's reforms survived in the form of an alternative independent regulator called Impress, and a number of respected and investigative titles have signed up. But those titles responsible for the most egregious abuses of press power remain in Ipso. If we are to tackle what the editorial refers to as 'irresponsibility in vast media organisations', then action to ensure press participation in the Leveson system would be a very good SparkesChief executive, Hacked Off Media giants and the powerful have been able to dodge the pursuit of accountability with costly webs of litigation for too long. It is about time everyone was made aware of the alternatives. By drawing an admission of wrongdoing and abhorrent journalistic ethics from News Group Newspapers and the Sun, Prince Harry has undoubtedly done a great public service. However, the fact that a member of the British royal family also ultimately decided to settle rather than risk enduring any more extortionate court costs is only further confirmation that access to justice when wronged by press intrusion is totally imbalanced. We have seen in the past 12 months one of the UK's most high-profile actors, Hugh Grant, forced to settle a similar case for the same reasons. If neither film royalty nor members of the actual royal family can afford to access true justice via the courts, what hopes do members of the public have if they are subject to the same illegality? An urgent refocus is needed. Impress offers alternative dispute resolution (ADR) to all publications that sign up to our regulatory scheme as part of their membership. This was also recently opened up to the public and all publishers, too, offering a lifeline to those threatened by Slapps (strategic litigation against public participation) and whose responsible free speech is subject to unjustified claims. ADR has the power to reach a legally binding conclusion in the same way that going through courts does. The only difference is that ADR can get you there in a fraction of the time and at a fraction of the cost. If you want access to justice, you can get it without breaking the bank. Huge media conglomerates and the powerful would just rather you didn't know about Kirkconnell-KawanaChief executive, Impress Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
