This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2017/jan/13/newspapers-push-for-judicial-review-of-impress-recognition
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Newspapers push for judicial review of Impress recognition | Newspapers push for judicial review of Impress recognition |
| (about 1 hour later) | |
| The trade body representing newspapers has taken another step towards obtaining a judicial review of the Press Recognition Panel’s decision to recognise the regulator, Impress. | The trade body representing newspapers has taken another step towards obtaining a judicial review of the Press Recognition Panel’s decision to recognise the regulator, Impress. |
| The News Media Association (NMA) has issued documents at court and also served them on the Press Recognition Panel (PRP) and Impress. | The News Media Association (NMA) has issued documents at court and also served them on the Press Recognition Panel (PRP) and Impress. |
| On the basis of legal advice, the NMA believes there were “serious and fundamental legal errors” in the PRP’s decision to grant Impress royal charter recognition in October last year. | On the basis of legal advice, the NMA believes there were “serious and fundamental legal errors” in the PRP’s decision to grant Impress royal charter recognition in October last year. |
| That advice came from Lord Pannick QC and Iain Steele, which was detailed in a 16-page letter to the PRP’s chairman, Dr David Wolfe QC, on 5 December. | That advice came from Lord Pannick QC and Iain Steele, which was detailed in a 16-page letter to the PRP’s chairman, Dr David Wolfe QC, on 5 December. |
| In the letter, the NMA’s lawyers - RPC (Reynolds Porter Chamberlain) - accused the PRP of riding roughshod over the intentions of Lord Justice Leveson in his report. | In the letter, the NMA’s lawyers - RPC (Reynolds Porter Chamberlain) - accused the PRP of riding roughshod over the intentions of Lord Justice Leveson in his report. |
| RPC argued that Impress does not satisfy the requirements of an appropriate regulator as outlined by Leveson and as embodied in the charter. | RPC argued that Impress does not satisfy the requirements of an appropriate regulator as outlined by Leveson and as embodied in the charter. |
| RPC stated: “Leveson was clear that effectiveness meant that the majority of the press should be behind this body and specifically recommended: ‘a new system of regulation should not be considered sufficiently effective if it does not cover all significant news publishers.’” | RPC stated: “Leveson was clear that effectiveness meant that the majority of the press should be behind this body and specifically recommended: ‘a new system of regulation should not be considered sufficiently effective if it does not cover all significant news publishers.’” |
| It added: “There is no sense in which a body such as Impress has been formed ‘by’ relevant publishers, nor even ‘on behalf of’ them.” | It added: “There is no sense in which a body such as Impress has been formed ‘by’ relevant publishers, nor even ‘on behalf of’ them.” |
| At the time of writing, the PRP had not responded to an email requesting a comment. A spokeswoman for Impress said it would not be making a comment at this stage. | |
| Source: NMA (1) and (2) | Source: NMA (1) and (2) |