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/2017/oct/12/high-court-rejects-challenge-to-status-of-impress-uk-press-regulator

The article has changed 8 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
High court rejects challenge to status of UK press regulator High court rejects challenge to status of UK press regulator
(35 minutes later)
The UK’s officially recognised press regulator, Impress, has fought off a high court challenge over its status.The UK’s officially recognised press regulator, Impress, has fought off a high court challenge over its status.
The News Media Association (NMA), which represents publishers, said the Press Recognition Panel (PRP), which was set up under a royal charter after the Leveson inquiry, should not have given Impress formal approval a year ago.The News Media Association (NMA), which represents publishers, said the Press Recognition Panel (PRP), which was set up under a royal charter after the Leveson inquiry, should not have given Impress formal approval a year ago.
The NMA said the PRP misinterpreted and misapplied the charter, but Lady Justice Rafferty and Mr Justice Popplewell, sitting in London, rejected its case on Thursday. The NMA said the PRP had misinterpreted and misapplied the charter, but Lady Justice Rafferty and Mr Justice Popplewell, sitting in London, rejected its case on Thursday.
The chairman of Impress, Walter Merricks, said: “This judgment shows that the system of externally verified self-regulation, recommended by Sir Brian Leveson, is fully functional.The chairman of Impress, Walter Merricks, said: “This judgment shows that the system of externally verified self-regulation, recommended by Sir Brian Leveson, is fully functional.
“We can now get on with the important job of upholding high standards of journalism.“We can now get on with the important job of upholding high standards of journalism.
“At a time when the news publishing industry is under massive pressure, Impress is uniquely able to reduce publishers’ legal risks and enhance their standing in the eyes of audiences and advertisers.“At a time when the news publishing industry is under massive pressure, Impress is uniquely able to reduce publishers’ legal risks and enhance their standing in the eyes of audiences and advertisers.
“We are grateful for the ongoing support of the NUJ, Sir Harry Evans and many others in and around the industry, and sorry that the NMA have wasted so much time attacking Impress, which meets the standards that they refuse to meet.”“We are grateful for the ongoing support of the NUJ, Sir Harry Evans and many others in and around the industry, and sorry that the NMA have wasted so much time attacking Impress, which meets the standards that they refuse to meet.”
Impress’s dependence on third-party funding from former motor sport mogul Max Mosley was one of the reasons why it should not have been recognised, said NMA. Impress’s dependence on third-party funding from the former motor sport mogul Max Mosley was one of the reasons why it should not have been recognised, the NMA said.
Lord Pannick QC argued that, while Impress was dependent on Mosley - “a proponent of strict regulation of the press” - it did not matter where the money came from. What mattered was that it must come from the funds of those being regulated. Lord Pannick QC argued that, while Impress was dependent on Mosley - “a proponent of strict regulation of the press” - it did not matter where the money came from. What mattered was that it must not come from the funds of those being regulated.
Ben Jaffey QC, for the PRP, said that the decision to grant recognition, which the judges refused to quash, was “unimpugnable”. Ben Jaffey QC, for the PRP, said the decision to grant recognition, which the judges refused to quash, was “unimpugnable”. It was taken after three rounds of open consultation during which NMA more than once advanced its views.
It was taken after three rounds of open consultation during which NMA more than once advanced its views.
Impress was an independent self-regulatory body and its funding was settled in agreement with the industry within the meaning of the charter, he added. There was no requirement that funding be provided from the industry or from anywhere in particular.Impress was an independent self-regulatory body and its funding was settled in agreement with the industry within the meaning of the charter, he added. There was no requirement that funding be provided from the industry or from anywhere in particular.
The Leveson report recognised that there was no objection in principle to funding, especially in the start-up phase of a regulator’s existence, being provided by third parties, and did not suggest that such funding was inappropriate. The Leveson report recognised that there was no objection in principle to funding, especially in the startup phase of a regulator’s existence, being provided by third parties, and did not suggest that such funding was inappropriate.
Jaffey said that Impress’s funding, which derived from the Alexander Mosley Charitable Trust, was provided under a grant agreement with the Independent Press Regulation Trust, a separate charity with different trustees.Jaffey said that Impress’s funding, which derived from the Alexander Mosley Charitable Trust, was provided under a grant agreement with the Independent Press Regulation Trust, a separate charity with different trustees.
The funding was, in the lawful judgment of the panel, sufficiently secure from withdrawal.The funding was, in the lawful judgment of the panel, sufficiently secure from withdrawal.
Most national newspapers have signed up to the Independent Press Standards Organisation (Ipso), a voluntary independent body not backed by the government.Most national newspapers have signed up to the Independent Press Standards Organisation (Ipso), a voluntary independent body not backed by the government.
They fear that the recognition of Impress could trigger legislation forcing newspapers to pay the costs of libel or privacy actions against them, even if they win their cases.They fear that the recognition of Impress could trigger legislation forcing newspapers to pay the costs of libel or privacy actions against them, even if they win their cases.