Leveson: frustration grows for victims of press abuse at dithering over bill

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/jan/05/leveson-frustration-dithering-hacked-off

Version 0 of 1.

Victims of press abuse, including celebrities such as JK Rowling and members of the public such as the parents of Madeleine McCann, are increasingly angry that the future relationship between politicians and newspapers is being decided behind closed doors.

On the eve of the publication of a proposed "Leveson bill" put together by the Hacked Off campaign group to provoke action, Dominic Crossley, the lawyer representing many of the victims, said his clients' shared frustration has reached new levels.

"Their resolve is incredibly strong and growing," said Crossley, an expert in the law of privacy, defamation and harassment. "They are well organised and fully active and, although many of the core participants I represent are not used to public life, they are a group of individuals who are seriously committed to taking this opportunity to improve the way newspapers behave. There is a sense of strong public support, too."

Crossley urged newspaper editors and proprietors to read the proposed draft bill to be unveiled on the Hacked Off campaign website. Drawn up by lawyers, the document offers a suggested shape for legislation and sticks closely to the recommendations made by Lord Justice Leveson at the end of November. "We have taken a lot of care to translate the inquiry recommendations as straightforwardly as possible," said Brian Cathcart, a journalist and founder of Hacked Off. "We believe this is the only credible and authoritative way forward." The proposals, Crossley believes, will put forward "a positive regulatory structure".

He added: "The idea would be to stop journalistic behaviour ever becoming a matter for the police, as with the regulation of all sorts of other professions."

The lawyer – whose clients include Charlotte Church, Hugh Grant, Anne Diamond, Paul Gascoigne and Sienna Miller, as well as members of the public at the centre of tragic news stories, including Christopher Jefferies – claims that the press stands to gain, rather than suffer, from a statutory framework based on Leveson's recommendations. "After all, he went to considerable lengths to dispel fears of state intervention in his conclusion. One of his aims is to enshrine a free press, and it offers other powerful benefits when it comes to libel and privacy and the enormous costs incurred for newspapers," Crossley said.

His clients suspect that established interests have now taken control. Crossley said all the victims had initially put themselves up for public scrutiny at the inquiry because they hoped for change. "These individuals, who each had a different and extraordinary story to tell, gave their evidence despite the obvious risk of repercussions from newspapers and the stress of having to relive, in public, highly sensitive and painful experiences," he said.

"It is widely accepted that the public's reaction to the evidence heard in the inquiry was one of shock. I was repeatedly told that this shock was not just at how people had been treated by newspapers but also at how close and unhealthy the relationship was between the press and politicians."

The lawyer said his clients had been led to believe that politicians from all three main parties would implement Leveson's proposals. "Now, one month since the report has been published, my clients are becoming increasingly frustrated at the lack of progress. What they all fear is that they are witnessing yet another example of politicians failing in their duty when it comes to the media," said Crossley.

"The questions we must ask ourselves are: why, and in whose interests, are these new proposals being made? And why are they being discussed in private between politicians and the press, with any news about progress only emerging from off-the-record briefings?"