This article is from the source 'nytimes' 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.nytimes.com/2013/10/31/world/europe/legal-battles-loom-over-british-press-curbs.html

The article has changed 6 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 2 Version 3
Legal Battles Open Over British Press Curbs British Publishers Lose Initial Challenge Over Press Curbs
(about 4 hours later)
LONDON — In a protracted battle over press regulation, British newspaper and magazine publishers went to court on Wednesday to challenge politicians’ plans for new curbs as prosecutors in a separate high-profile trial were scheduled to lay out an array of charges against former top editors. LONDON — In a protracted battle over press regulation, British newspaper and magazine publishers lost an initial challenge in court on Wednesday against politicians’ plans for new curbs, as prosecutors in a separate high-profile trial laid out an array of charges against former top editors.
The legal wrestling came hours before an advisory panel of senior politicians, known as the Privy Council, was to seek the formal assent of Queen Elizabeth II to an instrument known as a royal charter governing future press regulations.The legal wrestling came hours before an advisory panel of senior politicians, known as the Privy Council, was to seek the formal assent of Queen Elizabeth II to an instrument known as a royal charter governing future press regulations.
In the complex arguments that have arisen since a judicial inquiry into the behavior of the rambunctious press ended almost one year ago with a call for tighter rules, both the press and a cross-party alliance of politicians have formulated conflicting proposals for new rules governed by royal charter. Newspapers are also planning to set up a separate regulator of their own. But it did not signal the end of the contest between the politicians and the press. Newspapers are not obliged to sign the charter, although they are under pressure to do so in order to receive better protection from libel damages. Several publications are threatening to boycott the body set up under the charter and may seek further legal redress at the European Court of Human Rights. Newspapers are also planning to set up a separate regulator of their own.
In court on Wednesday, lawyers acting for publishers argued that politicians did not give adequate consideration to their proposals, and were expected to seek permission from senior judges to mount a formal legal challenge against the politicians’ charter. Richard Gordon, a lawyer acting for the press, said the charter proposed by publishers “has simply not been considered fairly.” In a London court on Wednesday, the publishers’ lawyers argued that politicians did not give adequate consideration to their own proposals for press regulation, and sought permission from senior judges to mount a formal legal challenge. Richard Gordon, a lawyer for the press, said the charter proposed by publishers “has simply not been considered fairly,” rationally or lawfully.
“We would add to that it has not been considered rationally and we would add to that it has not been considered lawfully,” he said. Lawyers for the government say that the publishers should be denied a chance to challenge the politicians’ charter and that there has been no unfairness or abuse of power, the Press Association news agency reported. Lawyers for the government said the publishers should not be allowed to challenge the politicians’ charter, and denied any unfairness or abuse of power, the Press Association news agency reported.
The main difference between the proposals lies in provisions for future modification of the rules, which the politicians want to be the prerogative of Parliament. The judges ruled on Wednesday that the publishers did not have an arguable case, and rejected their request to take their campaign further. Their lawyers said they might appeal the decision.
“The politicians claim the charter will protect the press, though the ineluctable fact is Parliament could change it for the worst at any time in the future,” the conservative Daily Mail tabloid said in an editorial. “Journalists would live in constant knowledge that if they angered M.P.s – by exposing another expenses scandal, for example – politicians who already scorn the media could take revenge by making the charter even more draconian.” The judges also refused to grant an injunction that would prevent the Privy Council from going ahead with its plans, meaning that the politicians’ blueprint for new press regulations may now receive the largely ceremonial royal assent.
In the complex arguments that have arisen since a judicial inquiry into the behavior of the rambunctious British press ended almost one year ago with a call for tighter rules, both the press and a cross-party alliance of politicians have formulated conflicting proposals for new rules governed by royal charter.
The main difference between the proposals is in provisions for future modification of the rules, which the politicians want to be the prerogative of Parliament.
“The politicians claim the charter will protect the press, though the ineluctable fact is Parliament could change it for the worst at any time in the future,” the conservative Daily Mail tabloid said in an editorial published before the rulings on Wednesday. “Journalists would live in constant knowledge that if they angered M.P.s — by exposing another expenses scandal, for example — politicians who already scorn the media could take revenge by making the charter even more draconian.”
The Department for Culture, Media and Sport said the politicians’ charter “will protect press freedom while offering real redress when mistakes are made.”The Department for Culture, Media and Sport said the politicians’ charter “will protect press freedom while offering real redress when mistakes are made.”
Royal charters are constitutional instruments used to incorporate bodies that, by their definition, “work in the public interest,” such as the BBC. Newspapers would not be obliged to sign the charter, but would have incentives to do so, including better protection from libel damages. Royal charters are constitutional instruments used to incorporate bodies that, by their definition, “work in the public interest,” like the BBC.
The push for new regulation came in the 2,000-page report of the Leveson inquiry into the telephone-hacking scandal that centered largely on parts of Rupert Murdoch’s media empire. The push for new regulations came in the 2,000-page report of the Leveson inquiry into the British phone hacking scandal, which centered largely on parts of Rupert Murdoch’s media empire.
Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson — former editors of the now-defunct Sunday tabloid The News of the World, which Mr. Murdoch closed as the scandal mushroomed in July 2011 — went on trial with other defendants on Monday charged with several offenses related to the scandal, all of which they deny. Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson — former editors of the now-defunct Sunday tabloid The News of the World, which Mr. Murdoch closed as the scandal mushroomed in July 2011 — went on trial with other defendants on Monday, charged with several offenses related to the scandal, all of which they deny.
The prosecution planned to open its case against them later on Wednesday, British news reports said. Opening the case against them on Wednesday, Andrew Edis, a prosecutor, said, “We will be able to show that there was phone hacking at The News of the World.”
He said jurors faced “quite a simple issue.”
“There was phone hacking — who knew?”
.