Leveson: The free press has not held truth to its own power

For over 40 years, as a barrister and judge I have watched the press in action. I know how
vital the press is - all of it - as guardian of the interests of the public, as a critical witness of
events, as a standard bearer for those who have no one else to speak up to them. Nothing has
changed that view. The press operating freely is one of the true safeguards of our democracy.
As a result it holds a privileged and powerful place in our society.
But this power and influence carries with it responsibility to the public interest in whose
name it exercises these privileges. Unfortunately as the evidence has shown beyond doubt, on
too many occasions those responsible along with the editors code of conduct - which the
press wrote and promoted - have simply been ignored. This had damaged the public interest,
caused real hardship and on occasion wreaked havoc on the lives of innocent people. What
the press do and say is no ordinary exercise of free speech; it operates very differently to
blogs on the internet and other social media such as Twitter. Its impact is uniquely powerful.
A free press in a democracy holds power to account but, with a few honourable exceptions,
the UK press has not performed that vital role in the case of its own power. None of this
however is to conclude that press freedom in Britain, hard won over 300 years ago, should be
jeopardised. On the contrary - it should not. I remain firmly believe that press, all of it, serves
the public very well well most of the time. The are truly countless examples of great
journalism, great investigations and great campaigns. Not that it is necessary for the press to
be pursuing serious stories for it to be acting in the public interest. Some its most important
functions are to inform, educate and entertain, and when doing so to be irreverent, unruly and
opinionated. But none of that means that the press is beyond challenge. I know of no
organised profession, industry or trade in which the serious failings of the few are overlooked
because of the good done by the many. In any other case the press would be the first to
expose such practices.
Leveson report: key recommendations
Here are the report's key recommendations, courtesy of Lisa O'Carroll:
New watchdog independent of MPs and newspapers, with statutory underpinning
An independent self-regulatory body underpinned by statute. It should be free of "any
influence from industry and government". Leveson said: "It should be governed by an
independent board. The chair and the members of the board must be appointed in a genuinely
open, transparent and independent way."
The possibility of a First Amendment-style law
Leveson says the legislation should allow for an independent regulator to be organised by the
industry, but it "should also place an explicit duty on the government to uphold and protect
the freedom of the press".
Powers, remedies and sanctions of the new watchdog

Fines of 1% of turnover with a maximum of 1m. It should have "sufficient powers to carry
out investigations both into suspected serious or systemic breaches of the code". Had the
Press Complaints Commission had this power it could have gone into the News of the World
newsroom to investigate allegations of widespread phone-hacking.
Libel resolution unit
The new watchdog should have an arbitration process in relation to civil legal claims against
subscribers. The process should be fair, quick and inexpensive. "Frivolous or vexatious
claims" could be struck out at an early stage.
Membership
This is not legally obligatory, which means the likes of Richard Desmond, owner of the
Express could continue to opt out of the regulatory body. But Leveson recommends that if
they do not join the independent regulator, they should be policed by the broadcast watchdog,
Ofcom.
And here are its key findings:
On phone hacking
Leveson makes no findings on any individual but says he is not convinced hacking was
confined to one or two individuals. "The evidence drives me to conclude that this was far
more than a covert, secret activity, known to nobody, save or or two practitioners of the 'dark
arts'."
Newspapers have recklessly pursued sensational stories
"There has been a recklessness in prioritising sensational stories, almost irrespective of the
harm the the stories may cause and the rights of those who would be affected." The damage
to people like the Dowlers, the McCanns and Elle Macpherson's former adviser has been
"devastating".
Families of actors and footballers also have rights to privacy
Families of famous people have had some of their lives destroyed by the relentless pursuit of
the press. Leveson says he found "ample evidence" that parts of the press decided actors,
footballers, writers, pop stars were "fair game, public property with little, if any entitlement
to any sort of private life or respect for dignity". He adds: "Their families, including their
children, are pursued and important personal moments are destroyed."
Condemns covert surveillance
Leveson finds that there has been "a willingness to deploy covert surveillance, blagging and
deception in circumstances where it is extremely difficult to see any public interest
justification". He notes the News of the World was even prepared to put a surveillance team
on two lawyers, Mark Lewis and Charlotte Harris, acting for phone hacking victims.

 Failure of compliance and governance at the News of the World

Few would subscribe to the view of Paul McMullan, the former feature writer, who told the
inquiry that "privacy is for paedos", says Leveson, but he said the paper's "casual attitude to
privacy and the lip service it paid to consent demonstrated a far more general loss of
direction".
Complainants not taken seriously enough
Leveson found "there is a cultural tendency within parts of the press vigorously to resist or
dismiss complainants almost as a matter of course". He says some papers are defensive and
even when an apology is agreed, they get their own back by resorting to "high-volume
extremely personal attacks on those who challenge them".

Lisa OCarroll, The Guardian 29.11.12