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 http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/oct/10/press-regulation-leveson-recommendations-lost

The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
Press regulation: Leveson distances himself from royal charter Press regulation: Leveson distances himself from royal charter
(about 2 hours later)
Lord Justice Leveson has broken his silence about his controversial report into reforming press regulation, declaring that he hopes it is not regarded as "bonkers" and that his recommendations are not "lost" in the political row over setting up a new industry watchdog. Lord Justice Leveson broke his silence over his controversial report into reforming press regulation, telling a committee of MPs that he hopes it is not regarded as "bonkers" and that he had not considered the idea that a body backed by a royal charter would act as auditor for a revamped system.
In a two-and-a-half hour quizzing by the Commons culture, media and sport select committee, Leveson tried to avoid being drawn into the debate over the future of press regulation, repeatedly referring MPs to his report, published in November 2012. However, Leveson's two-and-a-half hour interrogation by the Commons culture, media and sport select committee left the MPs frustrated as the judge refused to be drawn into the debate over the future of press regulation, repeatedly referring to the conclusions of his 2,000-page report, published in November 2012.
In sometimes heated exchanges during which both Leveson and MPs showed their frustration, the court of appeal judge distanced himself from a new regulatory system underpinned by royal charter. He also expressed irritation with the way his report had been represented in some quarters, and declined to comment further on the relationship between a barrister who worked with him on his judicial inquiry into the press industry and another who represents phone-hacking victims. The court of appeal judge did distance himself from a new regulatory system underpinned by royal charter, saying that the idea, from Cabinet Office minister Oliver Letwin, was not his and had not even been considered by his inquiry.
He said Oliver Letwin's idea that a royal charter would be the best way of preventing political interference in the new press regulator was not his and had not even been considered by his inquiry.
"You are right to say the concept of the royal charter was not mine. I did not think of it. What's more, nobody suggested it," Leveson said. "I received submissions from hundreds of people, dozens of bodies, and it wasn't a concept that came to me then or at any stage over the course of my deliberations.""You are right to say the concept of the royal charter was not mine. I did not think of it. What's more, nobody suggested it," Leveson said. "I received submissions from hundreds of people, dozens of bodies, and it wasn't a concept that came to me then or at any stage over the course of my deliberations."
Leveson said he was keen that the press industry comes up with a new regulatory system that was "independent and effective". But he warned: "It has to work for them, but it also has to work for the public." It was a sign of how limited Leveson's responses were that one of his most revealing remarks was a quip, in which he said that he hoped his report was "not bonkers".
In one of the many exchanges which left MPs frustrated with Leveson's reluctance to be drawn into the press regulation debate, he quipped that he hoped his report was "not bonkers". This was a reference to an earlier remark made by David Cameron, who had promised before the publication of the Leveson report that he would accept its recommendations so long as it did not propose "anything that is bonkers".
This was a reference to prime minister David Cameron, who had promised before the publication of the Leveson report that he would consider the recommendations so long as it did not propose "anything that is bonkers". The judge, who presided over the public inquiry into the culture and practices of the press, was also asked about a tweet by Rupert Murdoch this month claiming that the UK's print media was about to be "gagged to protect toffs" by a new regulatory regime. "I certainly am very frustrated at representations of my report which are not accurate," he replied, adding that this included Murdoch's tweet. "The regime that I proposed does not in any way impact the freedom of the press to publish anything it wants," Leveson said.
Leveson was asked about a tweet by Rupert Murdoch earlier this month claiming that UK print media was about to be "gagged to protect toffs" by a new regulatory regime. He voiced concern at how his report – which proposed that Ofcom or another statutory body acted as a recognition panel to certify the independence of the proposed press regulator – had been wrongly characterised as something that recommended statutory regulation or state regulation. "I'm certainly frustrated that people talk about statutory regulation of the press which I do not believe is what I recommended," he said.He went on to say the recognition panel he recommended be set up to do a regular health check of the new regulator was also being characterised as a route for some sort of political control of the press. "The recognition panel has absolutely nothing to do with the press. It merely deals with the efficacy of the press regulator."
"I certainly am very frustrated at representations of my report which are not accurate," he replied, adding that this included Murdoch's tweet. Leveson was visibly unhappy when questioning turned to the so-called "Loverson affair" between the inquiry's junior counsel Carine Patry-Hoskins and David Sherborne, counsel for the phone-hacking victims at the inquiry. When Tory MP Philip Davies refused to relent, he turned his gaze away in disgust.
"The regime that I proposed does not in any way impact the freedom of the press to publish anything it wants," Leveson said.
He also expressed frustration at how his report had been wrongly characterised as something that recommended statutory regulation or state regulation.
"I'm certainly frustrated that people talk about statutory regulation of the press which I do not believe is what I recommended," he said.
He went on to say the recognition panel he recommended be set up to do a regular health check of the new regulator was also being characterised as a route for some sort of political control of the press. "The recognition panel has absolutely nothing to do with the press. It merely deals with the efficacy of the press regulator."
Leveson was visibly unhappy when questioning turned to the so-called "Loverson affair" between the inquiry's junior counsel Carine Patry-Hoskins and David Sherbourne, counsel at the inquiry for the phone hacking victims. When Tory MP Philip Davies refused to relent, he turned his gaze away in disgust.
Earlier Davies had raised laughter in the Grimond Room in Westminster's Portcullis House when he asked the judge, recently promoted to president of the Queen's Bench Division, whether he had any "regrets" about his report. "There are a few typos," he quipped before qualifying his answer, saying he did not mean to be flippant.Earlier Davies had raised laughter in the Grimond Room in Westminster's Portcullis House when he asked the judge, recently promoted to president of the Queen's Bench Division, whether he had any "regrets" about his report. "There are a few typos," he quipped before qualifying his answer, saying he did not mean to be flippant.
One of the more illuminating exchanges related to a new arbitration service Leveson recommended in his report as an alternative to the high court. He inferred that local newspapers' concerns about the services were misplaced. The judge tried to defend his proposal that a revamped Press Complaints Commission could also provide an arbitration service to resolve serious complaints as an alternative to the courts. Owners of local newspapers have said it would be costly for them to support; but Leveson said that he thought their concerns were misplaced.
Adrian Jeakings, chief executive of Archant, one of the country's local newspaper groups and owner of four daily local papers and 60 weekly titles, has said he fears that the system could "open the floodgates to compensation payments" and "would place a crippling burden on the UK's 1,100 local newspapers, inhibiting freedom of speech and the freedom to publish".Adrian Jeakings, chief executive of Archant, one of the country's local newspaper groups and owner of four daily local papers and 60 weekly titles, has said he fears that the system could "open the floodgates to compensation payments" and "would place a crippling burden on the UK's 1,100 local newspapers, inhibiting freedom of speech and the freedom to publish".
Leveson said that the arbitration system he recommended was "a wonderful carrot and stick" and would reduce the "horrifically expensive" costs of libel action for newspapers, as litigants who did not chose to go through the proposed new arbitration unit would not get their costs paid if they went straight to the high court. Leveson said that the arbitration system he recommended was "a wonderful carrot and stick" and would reduce the "horrifically expensive" costs of libel action for newspapers, as litigants who did not choose to go through the proposed new arbitration unit would not get their costs paid if they went straight to the high court.
He added that arbitration should only deal with libel and privacy and that vexatious or frivolous claims could be very easily weeded out by a relevant professional. He added that arbitration should only deal with libel and privacy and said that vexatious or frivolous claims could be very easily weeded out by a relevant professional.
"I wasn't proposing compensation for complaints about fact or accuracy. It [the arbitration service] was purely for breaches of the law," he said, reminding MPs that many press representatives had welcome such an alternative to the high court during his inquiry. "I wasn't proposing compensation for complaints about fact or accuracy. It [the arbitration service] was purely for breaches of the law," he said, reminding MPs that many press representatives had welcomed such an alternative to the high court during his inquiry.
"I don't see it as the problem, as has been reported," he said. "I thought it was a wonderful carrot and stick." He also hinted that he may not want to conduct the proposed second part of the judicial inquiry into the press if parliament decided to go ahead with it following the criminal trials which are about to start into alleged unlawful activity at newspapers.
He also hinted that he may not be the one to conduct the proposed second part of the judicial inquiry into the customs and practices of the press if parliament decided to go ahead with it following the criminal trials which are about to start into alleged unlawful activity at newspapers. This second stage was intended to look in detail at the phone hacking allegations that prompted Leveson's inquiry. This second stage was intended to look in detail at the phone-hacking allegations that prompted Leveson's inquiry.• To contact the MediaGuardian news desk email media@guardian.co.uk or phone 020 3353 3857. For all other inquiries please call the main Guardian switchboard on 020 3353 2000. If you are writing a comment for publication, please mark clearly "for publication".
But he hinted that someone at that stage might want to review the efficacy of the new press regulator. • To get the latest media news to your desktop or mobile, follow MediaGuardian on Twitter and Facebook
• To contact the MediaGuardian news desk email media@guardian.co.uk or phone 020 3353 3857. For all other inquiries please call the main Guardian switchboard on 020 3353 2000. If you are writing a comment for publication, please mark clearly "for publication".
• To get the latest media news to your desktop or mobile, follow MediaGuardian on Twitter and Facebook
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.