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 6 | Version 7 |
|---|---|
| High court rejects challenge to status of UK press regulator | High court rejects challenge to status of UK press regulator |
| (13 days 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 had 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 the former motor sport mogul Max Mosley was one of the reasons why it should not have been recognised, the NMA said. | 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. |
| 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. | 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. |
| 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 startup 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. |
| In response to the judgement, the NMA said: “We are deeply disappointed by the court’s decision but maintain that the PRP’s decision to recognise Impress was deeply flawed. | In response to the judgement, the NMA said: “We are deeply disappointed by the court’s decision but maintain that the PRP’s decision to recognise Impress was deeply flawed. |
| “Today’s decision does not change the position which is that no significant publishers have signed up to Impress and none will do so. The national and regional newspaper and magazine industry already has an effective and robust self-regulatory system in place through IPSO, which 1,500 print titles and 1,100 websites are signed up to. | “Today’s decision does not change the position which is that no significant publishers have signed up to Impress and none will do so. The national and regional newspaper and magazine industry already has an effective and robust self-regulatory system in place through IPSO, which 1,500 print titles and 1,100 websites are signed up to. |
| “We will be seeking leave to appeal to the court of appeal.” | “We will be seeking leave to appeal to the court of appeal.” |
| Press regulation | Press regulation |
| Impress | Impress |
| Newspapers & magazines | Newspapers & magazines |
| news | news |
| Share on Facebook | Share on Facebook |
| Share on Twitter | Share on Twitter |
| Share via Email | Share via Email |
| Share on LinkedIn | Share on LinkedIn |
| Share on Pinterest | Share on Pinterest |
| Share on Google+ | Share on Google+ |
| Share on WhatsApp | Share on WhatsApp |
| Share on Messenger | Share on Messenger |
| Reuse this content | Reuse this content |